A. Whether Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act is unconstitutional

(b) Whether Article 12 and Article 11-2 of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act, which amended the tax rate pointed out to be unconstitutional in the decision of the Constitutional Court, and newly established basic deductions in the calculation of the tax base, can be applied retroactively

A. In Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, the phrase "... after acquisition" is not recognized as violating the principle of equality under the Constitution in light of the purpose of the enactment of the same Act.

B. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the former Land Excess Profit Tax Act does not conform with the Constitution in the case of 92HunBa49,52 (merged) on July 29, 1994. Accordingly, the National Assembly amended the tax rate provisions pointed out as unconstitutional by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994 (Article 12) and newly enacted the basic provisions that deduct two million won from the land excess profit in the pertinent taxable period when calculating the tax base (Article 11-2). The above amended provisions also apply to this case retroactively in the same manner as the pertinent case.

(a) Article 8(3)(b) of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2681 delivered on November 7, 1995 (dong Branch Decision 93Nu271 delivered on November 7, 1995) 93Nu271 delivered on November 7, 1995 (dong Branch Decision 93Nu271 delivered on November 7, 1995) 93Nu2728 delivered on July 27, 1995 (dong Constitutional Court Decision 93Hun-Ba13,88,13,15,199,19,22,37,38,39, 52 and 53 delivered on July 195 (Dong Branch Decision 1309No75 delivered on July 28, 195) 94Nu20402 delivered on July 29, 1995 (dong Branch Decision 93Nu19319 delivered on September 13, 195 (Dong Branch Decision 195Nu194539 delivered on July 194, 19597Nu19319405 delivered on July 19494.194.194

Plaintiff 1 and 10 Plaintiffs, Attorneys Go Young-gu and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in charge of the General Law Office

Attorney Kim Young-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu17558 delivered on February 10, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

In Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, "... after acquisition" is not recognized as violating the principle of equality under the Constitution in light of the purpose of the enactment of the same Act. There is no reason to discuss.

2. Furthermore, decisions are made ex officio.

On July 29, 1994, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the former Land Excess Profit Tax Act does not conform with the Constitution in the case of 92HunBa49,52 (Consolidation). Accordingly, the National Assembly amended the above tax rate provision which is deemed unconstitutional by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994 (Article 12) and newly established the basic deduction provision which deducts two million won from the land excess profit during the pertinent taxable period when calculating the tax base (Article 11-2), and the above amended provision applies retroactively to this case as to this case (Article 11-2). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the law as a result of the application of the tax base and tax rate and affected the judgment.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)