Whether the legislation of special surtax applies only to the transaction transferred after the enforcement of the special surtax, is a retroactive legislation.

The principle of non-payment of tax laws is merely the purport that the relevant laws and regulations cannot be applied to the taxation requirements that are closed before the entry into force of the relevant tax laws and regulations, and it does not limit the application of new Acts and subordinate statutes to the taxation requirements that are generated thereafter. Thus, insofar as the legislation of special surtax which provides for the transfer of land owned by a corporation as taxation requirements only applies to the transaction that is transferred after the enforcement thereof, it shall not be deemed a retroactive legislation.

Article 59 (1) 10 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4451 of Dec. 27, 1991)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Attorney Kim Dong-dong et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu29469 delivered on April 28, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The principle of non-payment in the tax law means the purport that the pertinent tax law cannot be applied to the facts that were closed prior to the entry into force of the pertinent tax law, and it does not limit the application of new laws and regulations to the facts that were accrued thereafter. Thus, insofar as the legislation of special surtax which is based on the transfer of land owned by a corporation only applies to the transaction that was transferred after its enforcement, it shall not be deemed a retroactive legislation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu3557, Feb. 27, 1990; 90Nu3300, Aug. 28, 1990).

2. Therefore, the court below's aforementioned purport is that Article 59-3 (1) 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 26, 198) provides that no special surtax shall be imposed on the income accrued from the transfer of reclaimed land by a person who acquired ownership pursuant to Article 14 of the Public Waters Reclamation Act, but Article 4020 of the same Act was deleted and Article 402 (2) 6 of the same Act was newly established, so that 50% of the special surtax shall be exempted from the special surtax, and Article 12 of the Addenda provides that the above provision of Article 19-3 (1) 19 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4020 of Dec. 30, 198) provides that the above provision shall apply to the transfer of the land acquired by a person who obtained a license for reclamation under the Public Waters Reclamation Act after the enforcement of the same Act, and that the above provision of Article 19 (1) 105 of the Addenda of the Public Waters 19 of the same Act shall be deleted from 19.

Of course, even if there is a aspect that does not meet the expected interest of a person who acquired a license for reclamation of public waters at the time of the enforcement of the law, so long as such legislation becomes such, this act shall be subject to taxation requirements, and as long as the transfer income tax or special surtax cannot be made due to the characteristics of the transfer income tax or special surtax which is subject to transfer gains, the argument that the determination of whether to impose special taxation shall be made based on the license period

Unless otherwise, the enactment or amendment of capital gains tax or special surtax always faces with the barriers of the prohibition of retroactive taxation.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)