A. In a case where the tax law was amended disadvantageous to the taxpayer, whether the former provisions should be applied in favor of the taxpayer, if the latter provisions provide for transitional provisions

(b) Whether Article 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act is invalid;

A. If the Addenda of the tax-related Act, in the case of the amendment, provides for a transitional provision that “The previous provisions shall apply to the tax, imposition, imposition, or reduction, or exemption pursuant to the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the Act,” this provision shall be deemed as a special provision that allows the taxpayer to apply the former Acts favorable to the taxpayer for the purpose of protecting the taxpayer’s rights of vested interests or trust, and thus, the former Act shall be applied.

B. Article 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 510 of July 26, 1990 and amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs) provides for the scope and application standards of factories exempt from acquisition tax and registration tax without any delegation from higher laws and regulations to reduce the scope of tax exemption targets, and it is clear that this is in violation of the principle

Articles 10-3(2)2 and 128-2(2)2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 51, Jul. 26, 1990); Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Nu88 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 1007) 89Nu4468 delivered on April 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 1081) 90Nu2949 delivered on October 10, 1990 (Gong1990, 2312) B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Nu145 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong190, 988)

Attorney Lee Byung-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu7964 delivered on February 16, 1993

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff operated a toy manufacturing business which is an urban type of business as provided in the attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Industrial Placement Act within the restricted rearrangement zone, and acquired the land for the industrial complex in Incheon Southern Eastdong on August 28, 190 and completed construction completion inspection of the building in this case on July 15, 191, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on the 30th of the same month, the court below determined that the new acquisition tax and registration tax under the former Local Tax Act were not imposed under the former Local Tax Act and the new local tax Act were not imposed under Article 19 of the former Local Tax Act and the new local tax Act which was enforced after January 1, 1990 were not imposed under the former Local Tax Act.

2. In the case of the amendment of the tax law, the Addenda of the tax law shall be imposed, reduced, or exempted according to the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the law.If a transitional provision provides that "The tax shall be imposed, imposed, or exempted according to the previous precedents", this provision shall be a special provision that requires the taxpayer to apply the former law in favor of the taxpayer in order to protect the person liable for tax payment's vested rights or trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu453, Apr. 9, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu8, May 12, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu468, Apr. 10, 199).

Article 110-3 (2) 2 of the former Local Tax Act and Article 128-2 (2) 2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 1990) provide that the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be exempted only for the business land and buildings of the relevant factory acquired (registration date) within five years from the date of acquisition (registration date) of the first factory land for the purpose of transferring the factory facilities to the restricted maintenance area and the special zone for industrial maintenance under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4269 of Jan. 31, 1990).

However, Article 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 510, Jul. 26, 190) which was enforced at the time of the above factory site of the Plaintiff provides that the acquisition tax shall be exempted, reduced or exempted pursuant to Article 110-3 (2) 1 and 2 of the Act. The scope of the factory building (....) is a business or workplace using not less than 100 square meters. The total floor area of the factory building (excluding the business as provided in the attached Table 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement Act) which is prescribed in the attached Table 3. The amended Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 510, Jul. 26, 1990) shall be restricted to the acquisition tax and registration tax under Article 47-2 (2) 1 and 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs).

However, the above Enforcement Rule reduces the scope and application standards of factories exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax without any delegation from the upper or upper laws. It is clear that the above Enforcement Rule violates the principle of no taxation without the law. On the other hand, Articles 110-3 (2) and 128-2 (2) of the Local Tax Act are amended by Act No. 4269 of December 31, 1990, and where "the provisions of Article 110-2 (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the scope and application standards of factories under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2, with the latter part of the "the provisions of Article 110-2 (2) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the scope and application standards of factories under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 and 2, and the new Enforcement Rule (amended by January 1, 191) shall become effective.

Therefore, before the new law enters into force, the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be exempted in accordance with the provisions of the former Local Tax Act for buildings for factories acquired to relocate factories of urban type such as toy manufacturing business, and the acquisition tax and registration tax shall not be excluded from those subject to exemption pursuant to Article 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act at the time when there is no ground for delegation, and after the new law enters into force, the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be excluded from those subject to exemption in accordance with the above Enforcement Rule (amended on July 26, 190), which is established by the new law, and the above Local Tax Act was revised to be disadvantageous to taxpayers.

However, Article 1 of the Addenda to the amended Local Tax Act (Act No. 4269) provides that the above amended Local Tax Act shall enter into force on January 1, 1991, and Article 3 of the Addenda provides that "the tax to be imposed or exempted shall be in accordance with the previous provisions at the time of the enforcement of the Act." Thus, in this case where the amended Local Tax Act unfavorable to the plaintiff, the acquisition tax and registration tax shall be exempted by applying the former Act in accordance with the above legal principles.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which held otherwise is erroneous by misapprehending Article 47-2 of the above Enforcement Rule which was null and void before the enforcement of the amended Local Tax Act, or by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 3 of the Addenda of the amended Local Tax Act, and the grounds for appeal pointing this out are with merit.

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.

Chief Justice Yoon-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)