(a) The meaning of “land subject to the land excess profit tax” as provided in Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and the time to determine whether it falls thereunder;

B. Whether the provisions of Article 66-3 of the same Act conflict with those of Article 62 (1) of the same Act and are unconstitutional

A. The phrase “land subject to the land excess profit tax pursuant to the provisions of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act” which is excluded from the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax as stipulated in Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 190) refers to idle land, etc. under Article 8 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, and it is reasonable to interpret that the determination of whether such idle land falls under such idle land as of the date of transfer according to the general principle of transfer income tax, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act cannot be deemed null and void because it is inconsistent with Article 62(1) of the same Act, and the two are different from the legislative purpose and intent, so it cannot be readily concluded that Article 66-3 of the same Act is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law or the economic order

A.B. Article 66-3 and Article 62(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 27, 1991)

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15925 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1111) 92Nu14045 delivered on May 25, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1923) 93Nu21361 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1032)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu34959 delivered on May 25, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The points of subparagraphs 1 through 3 shall be examined together.

“Land subject to taxation of land excess profit tax under the provisions of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act” under Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989 and amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) refers to idle land, etc. under Article 8 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, and it is reasonable to interpret that the determination of whether such idle land falls under such idle land as of the date of transfer according to the general principles of capital gains tax as of the date of transfer, barring special circumstances. Thus, it is reasonable to interpret that the land exceeding 9-6 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1822 of Apr. 10, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply to the former Act) should be deemed as falling under the scope of land excess profit tax under the provisions of Article 20-6-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, 25.

Therefore, in order to exclude the tax reduction or exemption under Article 62 (1) of the former Act as of the end of the taxable period stipulated in the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, in principle, in cases where the date of concluding the sale and purchase contract on the land of this case was before the enforcement of the above Enforcement Rule as of March 27, 1990, the above Enforcement Rule cannot be applied to the transfer of the land of this case, and in order to exclude the tax reduction or exemption under Article 62 (1) of the former Act, in principle, in cases where the land falls under the idle land as of the end of the taxable period stipulated in the Land Excess Profit Tax Act

In addition, Article 66-3 of the former Act cannot be deemed null and void because it is inconsistent with Article 62(1) of the former Act, and the two are different from the legislative purpose and purpose, so it cannot be readily concluded that the provision of Article 66-3 of the former Act is in violation of the principle of no taxation without law or the economic

All arguments are without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)