A. Whether the retroactive application of the corrected officially announced land price pursuant to the procedure stipulated in the guidelines for the joint investigation of individual land price is against the principle of no taxation without law

(b) In the case of paragraph (a), the case holding that the disposition of imposing additional tax on the under-paid return and payment by a taxpayer of capital gains tax on the basis of the previous individual land price is unlawful;

A. In a case where the computation of the officially announced land price is defective and it is immediately made in accordance with the procedure set out in the guidelines for the joint investigation of land price (Prime Minister’s Directive No. 241 and 248), it cannot be deemed that the said directives by the Prime Minister are invalid because they do not have any delegation of superior laws. Moreover, it cannot be deemed that the said revised announced land price is retroactively applied, and it is contrary to the no taxation without law

B. Where the officially assessed individual land price after land transfer is corrected and retroactively applied, expecting a taxpayer to report and pay capital gains tax on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price corrected after land transfer cannot be unreasonable under social norms, and therefore, on the ground that there is a justifiable ground that a taxpayer cannot cause an error of under-payment for under-payment as a result of reporting and paying under-payment based on the previously assessed individual land price, the disposition imposing additional tax is unlawful.

Articles 23(4), 45(1)1, and 60 of the former Income Tax Act; Article 115(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act; Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 12 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 12-3(b) of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 2 subparag. 4 and Article 47(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 121 of the former Income

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21293 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 1020). Supreme Court Decision 85Nu229 delivered on February 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 548) 88Nu4218 delivered on April 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 831) 92Nu2936,2943 delivered on October 23, 1992 (Gong192, 321)

[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 1 other

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu14754 delivered on February 17, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the official announcement of the land of this case in 1990 won was originally 470,000 won, but the head of Gangdong-gu announced the correction of the official announcement of the land of this case in 1990 won on July 1, 1991 on the ground of an erroneous investigation into the land use of this case. As such, there is a defect in the calculation of the official announcement of the land of this case as above, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the individual land price combination Guidelines (amended by Prime Minister Directive No. 241, Apr. 11, 1990; Prime Minister Directive No. 248, Mar. 29, 191; the above official announcement of the land of this case in 1990 won cannot be deemed as invalid because it did not delegate the superior law; the court below's determination that the above revised official announcement of land of this case was 290,000 won, 190 won.

B. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records and the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by neglecting the taxpayer's trust in applying the corrected officially announced value retroactively, and by omitting the decision on the plaintiff's assertion that it is illegal to cause the result of retroactive taxation, but it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer's trust was lost and that the result of retroactive taxation was caused by retroactively applying the corrected officially announced value. Thus, the above error does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out are not acceptable.

2. We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, on June 28, 1991, announced only the officially assessed individual land price before correction in 1990, which was the time when the plaintiff transferred the land of this case, determined whether to transfer the land of this case and the price of the land of this case considering the transfer income tax to be borne on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price before correction. Since the tax law which is subject to regulation of economic phenomena and transactions which are originally wide and continuous changes, its interpretation is not easy, and there is a conflict of opinion due to the significance in tax interpretation beyond a simple legal site or misunderstanding, and even if the plaintiff erred in the return and payment of the transfer income tax of this case, it is due to the conflict of opinion surrounding the application of the revised officially assessed individual land price after transfer. Since the correction of the officially assessed individual land price under the authority of the administrative agency without a party's objection is not easy to understand it, it cannot be justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the transfer income tax of this case, or it cannot be justified in the misapprehension and payment of legal principles as to the plaintiff.

3. Therefore, all of the appeals in this case are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant and the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)