A. Whether Article 115(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) which re-endorses only the method of calculating the standard market price at the time of its acquisition to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy where the transferred asset belonging to a specific area does not fall under a specific area

(b) In the case of paragraph (1), whether Article 56-5 (7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes that the standard market price at the time of its acquisition shall be calculated based on the conversion price determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, violates Article 115 (1) or (2) of

C. Whether the method of determining the standard market price is against the principle of no taxation without the law by distinguishing an area where a rapid increase in the real estate price is expected from a specific area (negative)

A. Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) provides for the general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price under paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 60 of the Income Tax Act and Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of the Income Tax Act), at the time of transfer, it constitutes a specific area as determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service at the time of transfer. Since it is apparent that the method for calculating the standard market price at the time of acquisition of assets with no multiple percentage is re-entrusted to the finance department by setting a specific scope only for limited matters, it cannot be said that Article 115 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is null and void because it is delegated to the finance department comprehensively with the determination of the standard market price, since

B. Even if Article 56-5(7) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that the value under Article 115(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act shall be the conversion value under the conditions prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of paragraph (5) of the same Article, this does not violate Article 115(1) or (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income

C. It does not go against the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution, by distinguishing areas where the real estate price has rapidly increased or is expected to increase or are expected to be a specific area, and determining differently the standard market price.

Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989)(b). Article 56-5(7)(c) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, Articles 38 and 59 of the

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dried iron static

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu9680 delivered on May 22, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 115 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Aug. 1, 1989; hereinafter the same) provides for general matters concerning the determination of the standard market price at the time of transfer under Article 60 (1) and (2) of the Income Tax Act, and stipulates specific specific areas at the time of transfer under Article 60 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act. Since it is clear that the method of calculating the standard market price at the time of acquisition of assets without multiple rates is re-entrusted to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, it cannot be said that the above Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is invalid because it is clearly delegated to the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy comprehensively with the determination of the standard market price at the time of transfer under Article 115 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767, Dec. 12, 1989; see each of the above Article 56-15 (2).

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)