A requirement to apply the previous provisions in favor of a taxpayer in order to protect the person liable for tax payment's rights or trust in the case of an amendment made disadvantageous to a taxpayer.

In cases where the tax laws and regulations are amended disadvantageous to taxpayers, even if there are cases where the previous provisions are applied in favor of taxpayers for the purpose of protecting the rights to acquire or trust in respect of the taxes imposed or to be imposed under the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of this Act, based on the provisions of the Addenda of the amended tax laws and regulations, such as "the previous provisions apply to the taxes imposed or to be imposed under the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of this Act." However, even if the previous provisions, which were effective at the time of the act of cause before the establishment of the tax liability, do not expressly stipulate that even if the tax requirements based on the act of cause are met for the future limited period in the future, it is merely merely a simple expectation, and it cannot be deemed that it is a substitute for the right to obtain

Article 59-3 (1) 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), Article 59-3 (2) 4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 1988), Article 12 (1) and Article 16 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989), Article 59 (1) and (3) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 30, 1989).

Korea Water Resources Corporation (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Park Woo-dong et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Tax Office (former Name: Daejeon District Tax Office's Second Instance, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu70 delivered on July 3, 1998

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

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

1. The amended Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198) deleted Article 59-3 (1) 14 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by the above Act) that no special surtax shall be imposed on the income accruing from the transfer of the land, etc. created by the project implementer of the area designated under the provisions of the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (amended by the above Act), and with respect to the "income accruing from the transfer of the land, etc. created by the project implementer of the district or district designated under the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act" under the Corporate Tax Act, the provision that the amount equivalent to 50/100 of the special surtax shall be exempted (Article 59-3 (2) 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, convenience "the Corporate Tax Reduction and Exemption Regulations" was newly established and applied from the first transfer of the land after January 1, 1989 (Article 12 (1) of the Addenda), and with respect to the land generated by the project implementer under the provisions of Article 16 (1) of the former Act.

After all, the amended Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989) deleted the provisions of the Corporate Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989) to simplify the taxation and promote the unity of the policies for tax reduction and exemption by absorbing various systems of reduction and exemption recognized in the taxation of capital gains tax and special surtax for the purpose of smooth implementation of public projects (Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption) and newly enacting the provisions that reduce the amount of tax equivalent to 50/100 of special surtax for the first time from January 1, 1990 (Article 59 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption and Exemption and the provisions on the reduction and exemption of capital gains tax or special surtax for the purpose of supporting various policies scattered in the Income Tax Act or the Corporate Tax Act.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that in the case of the amendment of the tax law, where the amended provisions of the tax law stipulate the transitional provisions of the former provisions of the tax law "as to the taxes imposed or to be imposed under the former provisions at the time of the enforcement of this Act", this is a special provision that allows the taxpayer to apply the former provisions favorable to the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's vested rights or trust, and thus, in the case of the amendment of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act unfavorable to the taxpayer, the court below's decision that in accordance with Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Control Act, the previous provisions which are favorable to the taxpayer for the protection of the taxpayer's vested rights or trust should be exempted from the special surtax, and thus, the disposition of refusal to impose the special surtax of this case and the special surtax of this case already paid by the plaintiff after January 1, 199, which is the project implementer of the project district designated by the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act.

3. In a case where a tax law was amended disadvantageous to a taxpayer, even if there exists a case where the previous provisions are applied in favor of a taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer’s vested right or trust based on the supplementary provisions as cited by the court below, even if the previous provisions, which had already been effective at the time of the act of cause prior to the establishment of the tax liability, do not expressly stipulate that even if the tax requirements based on the act of cause are met for a limited period in the future, it shall not be deemed that even if a taxpayer has trusted the tax reduction or exemption pursuant to the previous provisions, it is merely merely a simple expectation, and it shall not be deemed that it is in lieu of the vested right, and therefore, it should be protected.

However, as the previous provisions of this case do not provide for the purport that the above "the transitional provisions of non-taxation" are specifically non-taxation within a certain period even in the case that satisfies the future taxation requirements, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has a trust in lieu of the vested right due to "the transitional provisions of non-taxation, which are the previous provisions," which are the previous provisions.

Nevertheless, without any special circumstance, the court below determined that the special surtax should be exempted by applying "the transitional provisions of non-taxation" and "non-taxation provisions of the Corporate Tax Act, which are the previous provisions favorable to the plaintiff pursuant to the above supplementary provisions to protect the plaintiff's vested rights and trust." Thus, there is an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the protection of trust, and the ground of appeal pointing

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)