[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that Article 157 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act does not violate Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 96 of the former Income Tax Act, which is a provision on the scope of capital gains tax, as well as the provision on the transfer value of Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act, and cannot be deemed as violating the principle of clarity or an unjust expansion of taxable objects, and the tax items, tax bases, tax rates, calculated tax amounts, additional taxes, and total notified tax amount are stated in a tax

Articles 94 and 96 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 2000), Article 157 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032 of Dec. 29, 2000)

Plaintiff

Head of Suwon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu22397 Decided May 23, 2006

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, Article 157 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032, Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) provides that “large stockholders, etc. who own not less than 3/100 of the total amount of stocks, etc. of the relevant corporation as of the end of the fiscal year immediately preceding that whereto belongs the date of transfer” as “one stockholder and other stockholders” and the latter part of the same subparagraph provides that “one stockholder and other stockholders after the end of the immediately preceding fiscal year shall be included in 3/100, but not less than 3/100 of the total amount of stocks, etc. shall be included in 40% after the date of acquisition of the stocks, etc., 70% of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17032, Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree”) shall not be deemed to have violated Article 9764 of the former Income Tax Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)