Where a transfer contract is concluded prior to the amendment of the Enforcement Decree, the applicable statutes.

The transfer value of this case which is concluded by the transfer contract to be enforced by the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be calculated pursuant to the Enforcement Decree before the amendment.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 26,471,450 and the defense tax of KRW 5,294,290 against the Plaintiff on July 16, 1987 shall be revoked. 2. The litigation cost shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. 각 진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(납세고지서) 갑 제2호증(이의결정서), 갑 제3호증(심사결정서), 갑 제4호증(심판결정서), 을 제1호증의 1(결정결의서), 2(과세자료전), 을 제2호증의 1(예정신고서), 2(계산명세서), 3,4(각 토지대장), 5,6(각 등기부등본)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 보태니, 원고는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 195평방미터와 같은동 ㅇㅇ번지 대 195평방미터(이하 이사건 토지라고만 한다)를 1955. 12. 31. 상환완료를 원인으로 소유권을 취득하여 보유하다가 이사건토지중 위 ㅇㅇ번지 대지는 소외 장ㅇㅇ에게, 위 ㅇㅇ번지 대지는 소외 김ㅇㅇ에게 각 양도하여 1987. 5. 29. 각 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 준 사실, 원고는 1987. 6. 30. 이사건 토지의 양도에 따른 자산양도차익 예정신고를 하면서 이사건토지는 취득이후에 특정지역으로 고시되었으며 취득당시에는 특정지역에 소재하지 아니하였다는 이유로 그 취득가액과 양도가액을 모두 지방세법상 과세시가표준액으로 계산하여 별지세액산출표 원고신고란 기재와 같이 양도소득세 금8,793,914원, 동 방위세 금1,758,782원을 자진 납부한 사실, 이에 대하여 피고는 소득세법 제23조제4항 , 제45조제1항 , 제60조 및 같은법시행령 제115조제1항제1호(가)목 과 같은령 제115조제3항(1987.5.8. 대통령령 제12154호로 개정되기 전의 것) 을 적용하여 위 115조제3항 소정의 취득당시 특정지역에 대한 배율이 없는 것 이란 취득당시에 특정지역으로 고시되고 배율의 정함이 없는 경우란 조세실무상 보기드문 경우로서 이러한 경우뿐만 아니고 특정지역으로 고시되지 아니하여 배율의 정함이 없는 경우를 모두 포함한다고 보아야 한다는 사유를 들어 이사건토지의 양도가액은 소득세법시행령 제115조제1항제1호(가)목 소정의 배율방법으로 계산한 기준시가로 하고, 취득가액은 위에서 본 같은 시행령 제115조제3항 과 같은법 시행규칙 제56조의5,제7항, 제5항 의 규정에 의한 환산방법으로 각 산출하여 그 양도차익을 결정한 뒤 1987. 7. 16. 별지 세액산출표 피고결정 란 기재와 같이 원고의 자진납부세액을 공제하여 양도소득세로 금26,471,450원 동 방위세로 금5,294,290원을 각 부과결정하여 이를 고지함으로써 이사건 부과처분에 이른 사실이 인정되고 반증없고 이사건토지에 대하여는 1983. 3. 8. 특정지역으로 고시된 사실은 당사자간에 다툼이 없다.

2. (A) The defendant, in addition to the above applicable provisions of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, was amended on May 8, 1987. According to this, the transfer value of real estate falling under a specific area at the time of its acquisition shall be assessed by the method of multiple rates, and the acquisition value shall be assessed by the method of conversion. Since the above provision of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act before the amendment of May 8, 1987 is legitimate, since the above provision of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of land at the time of its acquisition, unless the above provision of the above applicable provisions of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is stipulated in Article 115 (3) of the above Act, since the above provision of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to the transfer of land at least 1000 days after the above revision of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

(B) Article 60 of the Income Tax Act provides that the standard market price at the time of its acquisition shall be determined by the Presidential Decree at the time of its acquisition. Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree shall be the value assessed by the rate under paragraph (1) for a specific area as stipulated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the value calculated by the standard market price under the Local Tax Act for a specific area shall be the standard market price [Article 1 (a) and (b) of the Enforcement Decree]. Article 60 (2) provides that the rate shall be determined by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition unless it is determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy at the time of its acquisition. Article 17 (1) 1 (a) of the Income Tax Act shall be determined by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition. This provision provides that the value of the land and building at the time of its acquisition shall not be determined by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition. This provision provides that the rate shall not be determined by the standard market price at the time of its acquisition.

(C) On the other hand, this paper examines whether the Enforcement Decree of the above Amendment was applied to the transfer of the instant land on May 8, 1987.

우선 양도소득세의 과세대상으로서의 양도라함은 자산이유상으로 사실상 이전되는 경우를 말하는데( 소득세법 제4조제3항 ) 이러한 자산의 유상양도가 있다고 보려면 그 자산의 대가가 사회통념상 거의 지급되었다고 볼만한 정도의 대금지급이 이행되어야만 한다고 할 것인바 ( 대법원 1989. 7. 11.선고 88누 8609판결 참조), 위 을 제2호증의 3내지 6, 진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제5호증(매매계약서)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 보태니, 원고는 1986. 11. 8. 이사건토지(이는 1986. 12. 16 같은동 ㅇㅇ번지에서 각기 분할되었다)를 소외 장ㅇㅇ, 김ㅇㅇ에게 대금 106,000,000원에 매도하기로 하는 양도계약을 체결하고, 그날 계약금 10,000,000원을 수령하였고, 중도금 40,000,000원은 1986. 12. 29.에, 잔금 56,000,000원은 1987. 5. 29.에 각 수령한뒤 잔금수령일에 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실이 인정되고 반증없으므로 이사건토지는 1987. 5. 29. 양도되었다고 보아야 할 것이다.

However, the establishment of tax obligation and its scope shall be limited to the tax law, and the tax obligation shall be established when the tax requirement under each tax law is completed, and it shall be determined by the law enforced at the time when the tax obligation is established. However, when the tax law is revised disadvantageous to the taxpayer, the former law shall be applied as a matter of course where the revised tax law requires the application of the former law favorable to the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 83Nu453, Apr. 9, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu453, May 8, 1987). Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the above revised tax obligation shall be applied only when the above revised tax law becomes effective from the date of its promulgation, and Article 115 (1) of the Addenda of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that the transfer income tax shall be applied only in cases where it is not applied for the first time after the amendment of Article 115 (3) of the Addenda of the above Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

Nevertheless, the purport of Paragraph 3 of the above Addenda is general to determine whether or not a taxpayer will be subject to taxation in consideration of the existence and scope of tax liability to be borne by him under the tax law enforced at the time of the act in conducting an economic juristic act, and to determine the contents of the act. Considering this, in a case where the relevant tax law is revised disadvantageous to a taxpayer after a taxpayer engaged in an act which is subject to taxation and the time when the requirements for taxation are completed comes after the date of enforcement of the amended tax law, if the general principles of the tax law as mentioned above are applied, it would be contrary to the taxpayer's trust as to the existence and scope of the tax obligation and unfairly infringe on the taxpayer's property right. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize exceptions to the above general principles in order to prevent this.

(D) Therefore, in this case where the transfer contract for the land of this case was concluded on November 8, 1986, which was before the amendment and enforcement of Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, as seen above, as a matter of course, the Enforcement Decree prior to the amendment of May 8, 1987 should be applied. According to this, since the land of this case was located in a specific area at the time of transfer, but it does not correspond to a specific area at the time of transfer, it cannot be calculated by the rate and conversion method under Articles 115 (1) 1 (a) and 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, and both the transfer value and the acquisition value should be calculated by the standard market price under the Local Tax Act under Article 115 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax

3. Therefore, as to the transfer of the land of this case where the transfer contract was concluded prior to the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree on May 8, 1987, it is unlawful that the defendant calculated the transfer margin by means of the above multiple factor method and the conversion method, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the objection is justified as it is unnecessary to determine the remaining main claim, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant as the losing party.