The meaning of "Seoul Metropolitan Area" under Article 130 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Articles 61(1) and 130(1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6297 of Dec. 29, 2000); Article 57(1) and [Attachment Table 7] subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17034 of Dec. 29, 2000); Article 57(1) and [Attachment Table 7] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No.

The Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor (Law Firm Dom General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jong-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu13597 delivered on July 9, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Article 130 (1) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6297 of Dec. 29, 2000; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that Article 25 (Tax Credit for Investment in Specific Equipment) shall not apply to the fixed assets for business located in the Seoul Metropolitan Area where a national starts up in the Seoul Metropolitan Area after January 1, 1990, and does not explicitly provide for the scope of the “Seoul Metropolitan Area”, but Article 61 (1) of the Act provides that “Seoul Metropolitan Area prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereinafter “Seoul Metropolitan Area”)” and Article 57 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17034 of Dec. 29, 200; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”) provides that “In light of the legislative structure and form of Article 61(1) [Attachment 7] 1 of the Act, Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act” refers to the legislative structure and its history.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the disposition of this case, which did not apply Article 25 of the Act, is justified, since the investment of this case was an investment excluded from tax reduction and exemption, is justified, and there is no violation of law as to the scope of the metropolitan area

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

Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)