A. Whether Article 72(3)5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) is valid (affirmative)

(b) The case regarding the speculative transaction stipulated in the preceding paragraph as it purchased farmland, etc. in a wide range and resells them over a short period of time through the purchase thereof.

C. Whether Article 72 (3) 8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (No. 980 of the National Tax Service’s Directive on January 26, 1987) is valid (negative)

A. Article 72(3)5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) cannot be deemed as a invalid provision in violation of the principle of no taxation without law.

B. If the Plaintiff purchased farmland, etc. several times in a broad area and resells them within a relatively short period of 21 years and six months, and there is no evidence to deem that the said farmland, etc. were cultivated on its own responsibility and account, and if the Plaintiff’s resident registration has been transferred on his/her own by separating his/her family members and resident registration, each of the above land transactions is objectively obvious that it corresponds to Article 72(3)1 and 3 of the former Regulations on the Tax Investigation of Property (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of January 26, 1987). Thus, the lower court’s decision that it is an speculation transaction under Article 72(3)5 of the same Act is correct.

C. Article 72(3) Subparagraph 8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) violates the principle of tax law and duty.

Article 23(4) and Article 45(1)1 of the Income Tax Act, Article 170(4)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 72(3) of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Research (amended by National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987). Article 72(3)8(3)5 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Research (National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987)

(a) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3786 delivered on July 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1824). Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8149 delivered on May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1285)

Attorney Park Dong-dong Kim-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Deputy Director of the Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu11772 delivered on May 30, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

(1) Article 72 (3) 5 of the former Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (amended by the National Tax Service Directive No. 980, Jan. 26, 1987) purporting that the provisions of Article 72 (3) 5 of the same Act cannot be regarded as invalid provisions in violation of the principle of no taxation without law (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3768, Jul. 27, 1990) are right and wrong, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, upon examining the Plaintiff’s land transaction related to the transfer income tax for the year 1983 from the 1983-1986 and the defense tax based on the evidence of the city, the court below held that the Plaintiff purchased several lands including farmland and land sites in a broad area and sold a short period of time within a relatively short period of one year and six months, including farmland and land sites, and that such farmland had already been transferred before June 1985, which the Plaintiff asserted that he was specialized in agriculture, or that the Plaintiff had cultivated the Plaintiff’s own account with an orchard located far away from the Plaintiff’s residence. In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had transferred his resident registration separately with his family and resident registration, and that the Plaintiff purchased and reselled the land in an area where the real estate speculation takes place in many real estate areas, other than the land at issue in this case, it is reasonable to view that the court below’s selection of evidence through the process of finding facts, and that there is no errors in the judgment of the court below in full view of evidence evidence evidence evidence or insufficient.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

Article 72 (3) 8 of the Regulations on the Management of Property Tax Investigation (National Tax Service Directive No. 980 of Jan. 26, 1987) is to be null and void in violation of the principle of no taxation without law (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu8149, May 8, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu3768, Jul. 27, 1990). Therefore, the tax disposition cannot be imposed on the ground of this provision. The above purport of the judgment below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)