(a) Where tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes are amended disadvantageous to taxpayers, but they have transitional regulations for the protection of vested rights and trust;

B. Interpretation of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Urban Redevelopment Project Act

(c) Whether a exempted person of registration tax under the Local Tax Act or Municipal Ordinance can be included in a taxpayer of education tax;

A. In a case where the tax laws and regulations were amended before and after the time when the liability for tax payment was established, the provisions that were enforced at the time when the liability for tax payment was established, among the provisions before and after the amendment, are reasonable in accordance with the principle of no payment in law. However, in a case where the tax laws and regulations were amended disadvantageous to the taxpayer, the previous provisions should be applied in a case where the former provisions are applied in favor of the taxpayer by having special transitional provisions

B. Article 2 of the Addenda to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Urban Redevelopment Project, amended on December 31, 1991, "The previous provisions shall apply to the market price which has been exempted or should be exempted from taxation pursuant to the previous Municipal Ordinance at the time this Ordinance enters into force," and the previous provisions shall be deemed as a special provision that the previous provisions apply to the person liable for tax payment in favor of the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's right to benefit or trust in the event the real estate registration subject to exemption from the market price (registration tax) under the previous Municipal Ordinance

C. According to Article 3 subparagraph 4 of the Education Tax Act and Article 5 (1) subparagraph 4 of the Local Tax Act, if the registration tax is exempted pursuant to the Local Tax Act or municipal ordinances, there is no amount of the registration tax to be paid. Thus, unless there is any other special provision, the exempted person of the registration tax can not be included in the person liable

(a)Article 18(b) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 1 and Article 2(c) of the Addenda of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance on Exemption from Taxation on the Urban Redevelopment Project ( December 31, 1991). Article 3 Subparag. 4 and Article 5(1)4 of the Education Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu453 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985,738) 89Nu4468 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990,1081) 93Nu5666 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1860) 94Nu15387 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Dong) 22, 1994

East Investment Development Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu29916 delivered on March 31, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In a case where a tax law was amended before and after the time when the tax liability was established, the provisions that were enforced at the time when the tax liability was established shall be natural in light of the principle of no payment in law. However, in a case where a tax law was amended disadvantageous to a taxpayer, the previous provisions should be applied in a case where the former provisions are applied in favor of a taxpayer by having special transitional provisions for the protection of a taxpayer’s right to obtain profit or trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu453, Apr. 9, 1985; 89Nu4468, Apr. 10, 190; 93Nu5666, May 24, 1994).

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Urban Redevelopment Project Act (amended by Ordinance No. 2843 of Dec. 31, 191), which is the provision of the pertinent Municipal Ordinance, provides that "The land and buildings acquired by the project implementer within the redevelopment area designated under the Urban Redevelopment Act shall be exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax, but the amended Municipal Ordinance of Dec. 31, 191 shall be limited to "the redevelopment area designated under the Urban Redevelopment Act" as provided in Article 2 (1) of the previous Municipal Ordinance and revised as "the redevelopment area designated under the Urban Redevelopment Act (limited to the housing improvement redevelopment project under subparagraph 2 of Article 2 of the Urban Redevelopment Act)", and Article 1 of the Addenda provides that "The previous provision of Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Municipal Ordinance shall apply to the acquisition tax which was exempted or should be exempted from taxation under the previous Municipal Ordinance at the time of entry into force of this Ordinance, and Article 2 of the Addenda provides that "the person liable for tax payment shall be excluded from the previous provision of 95 years of acquisition tax or exemption from the previous Municipal Ordinance.

In the same purport, the court below was justified in holding that the registration tax of the building of this case, which was designated as the re-development project implementer at the time of the enforcement of the previous Municipal Ordinance, should be exempted in accordance with the previous Municipal Ordinance, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the amended Municipal Ordinance and its Addenda

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 3 (4) of the Education Tax Act provides that "A taxpayer of registration tax under the Local Tax Act shall be one of those liable for education tax, and Article 5 (1) 4 of the same Act provides that "the registered tax amount payable under the Local Tax Act" shall be the tax base. According to this provision, if a registration tax is exempted under the Local Tax Act or municipal ordinance, the amount of registration tax payable shall not exist. Thus, unless there are other special provisions, the exempted person of registration tax shall not be included in a taxpayer of education tax.

It is unreasonable that the taxation subject of local tax should extinguish the right to impose education tax, which is national tax, in accordance with the local tax reduction and exemption ordinance, which is a different view, so it is not acceptable to accept all the arguments that local tax reduction and exemption tax should be recognized.

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

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)