A. Time of determination as to whether the “land subject to the land excess profit tax under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act” under Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) constitutes “land subject to the land excess profit tax”

B. Whether Article 20-6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1850 of March 13, 1991) is an invalid provision beyond the scope of the mother law without delegation provisions

A. The time of determining whether the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax under the provisions of Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) constitutes the idle land under Article 8 of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, i.e., the land subject to the taxation of the land excess profit tax under the provisions of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, shall be based on the date of transfer according to the general principles of imposition of the transfer income tax.

B. In Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1850 of Mar. 13, 191), the determination of whether the land is subject to the land excess profit tax under Article 66-3 of the Act shall be based on whether the land falls under the idle land as of the date of transfer shall be based on whether it falls under the idle land as of the date of transfer shall not be deemed invalid beyond

A. Article 66-3(b) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 20-6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1850, Mar. 13, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15925 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1111) 93Nu4038 delivered on June 8, 1993

[Judgment of the court below]

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu10028 delivered on August 25, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below's decision is just in light of the process of cooking evidence, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to incomplete deliberation, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to

Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) (amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) excludes the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax under the provisions of Article 66-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, namely, the time of determining whether the land falls under idle land under Article 8 of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act is based on the date of transfer according to the general principles of imposition of capital gains tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Nu15925, Feb. 26, 1993; 93Nu4038, Jun. 8, 1993).

Therefore, the determination of whether the land is subject to the land excess profit tax under Article 66-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1850 of March 13, 1991) cannot be said to be invalid beyond the scope without any ground for delegation of the mother law.

In the same purport, the court below recognized that the land of this case that the plaintiff transferred to the non-party corporation's house on board constitutes idle land, which is excluded from capital gains tax reduction as of the date of such transfer, and held that the disposition of this case is legitimate, is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

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 Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)