Whether Article 43-2 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the method of calculating the value of non-business real estate to be excluded from paid interest, violates the no taxation without law

Article 43-2 (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13803, Dec. 31, 1992) provides that the asset value of non-business real estate or the book value or standard market value as of the end of the pertinent business year shall be the larger of the acquisition value of non-business real estate or the value of non-business real estate as of the end of the pertinent business year. The purpose of the provision is to induce the disposal of non-business real estate ultimately by regulating the acquisition of non-business real estate as well as the acquisition of non-business real estate. Thus, this purpose is to realize the intent of the mother law, and therefore, the content of the provision is not contrary to the principle of no taxation without the law or contrary

Article 18-3(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4664 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 43-2(4) and (8) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13803 of Dec. 31, 1992)

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

Han-il Bank (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu26034 delivered on October 25, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 18-3 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) means the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree among interest on loans paid during each business year to a domestic corporation that acquires or owns assets falling under any of the following subparagraphs (limited to interest on the relevant assets among such loans). It shall not be included in the calculation of income amount for each business year; Article 43-2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall not be included in the calculation of the monthly income amount; Article 18-3 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1981, Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be the aggregate of the acquisition value of real estate and the amount of interest paid for each business year calculated pursuant to the Presidential Decree No. 193 (2). 19).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, 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 Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)