[1] In a case where a statute was amended in its entirety, whether the provision of the Addenda before the amendment is extinguished (affirmative)

[2] Where a tax statute was amended disadvantageous to a taxpayer, the requirements to apply the previous provision favorable to a taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer's rights to obtain a license or trust

[3] The case holding that in the case of farmland transferred after January 1, 1999 by the Special Act on the Restriction of Special Taxation enforced, the previous provisions on the exemption of capital gains tax for self-arable farmland do not apply

[4] Whether Article 54(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 66(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act infringe on the constitutional equality right or violate the principle of tax equality or the principle of protection of trust under the Framework Act on National Taxes

[1] Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 584, Dec. 28, 198); Article 5 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1496, Dec. 30, 1995); Article 10 (3) of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1486, Dec. 30, 1995); Article 69 (1) 1 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16196, Mar. 12, 1999); Article 9 (2) of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1981, Dec. 16, 1998) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1496, Dec. 16, 198) (refer to the current Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act)

[1] [2] [3] Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12929 decided Nov. 25, 2004 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1168 decided Jul. 26, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2091) Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780 decided Jun. 24, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1249) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du13713 decided May 29, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1523) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Du7265 decided May 29, 2001 (Gong201Ha, 1526)

Lee Jae-gu (Attorney Lee Jae-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 2003Nu217 delivered on October 10, 2003

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 5 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 5584, Dec. 28, 1998; hereinafter "the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that income accruing from the transfer of land which is subject to farmland tax as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be exempted from capital gains tax. Article 54 (2) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14869, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter "the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that "the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act No. 1960, Dec. 16, 200; hereinafter "the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act No. 1960, Dec. 9, 200; hereinafter "the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act No. 960, Mar. 16, 1995>

B. As such, if the revised Act is a specialized law, it is the same as the repeal of the existing law and the enactment of a new law, and therefore, the previous provisions of the Addenda of the previous Act shall be deemed null and void, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1168, Jul. 26, 2002). Meanwhile, in cases where the tax law is revised disadvantageous to taxpayers, the previous provisions favorable to taxpayers for the purpose of protecting the rights of taxpayers or trust, based on the transitional provisions, such as Article 9(2) of the Addenda of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, are applicable, even if the former provisions, which were effective at the time of the act of cause before the establishment of the tax liability, are met with the requirement of taxation based on the act of cause, and thus, it shall be deemed that the previous provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are not applicable to cases where a taxpayer trusted tax reduction and exemption, etc. under the previous provisions, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the previous provisions of the amended provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act are not applicable within a certain period of 919.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of transitional provisions as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The provision of the taxation requirements and the exceptional provision of non-taxation or tax exemption requirements in the tax law shall belong to the legislative discretion unless the provision is clearly unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du7265 delivered on May 29, 2001). Thus, Article 54(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act as amended on December 30, 1995 or Article 66(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act as amended on December 31, 1998, of the Special Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption, which was amended on December 30, 1998, provides for "the resident who resides in the location of the location, and has deleted the previous common distance provision and decided whether the administrative district alone is residing in the location, such circumstance alone cannot be said to violate the constitutional equality right or the principle of equality and protection of trust under the Framework Act on National Taxes and thus null and void.

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

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)