[1] The standard time to determine whether special surtax exemption requirements are applicable

[2] Whether retroactive legislation is applicable to the case where a new legislation to abolish the scope of reduction and exemption of special surtax, which is a taxable requirement for the transfer of land owned by a corporation, is applied only to the land transferred after its enforcement (negative)

[3] In a case where a statute was amended in its entirety, whether the provision of the Addenda before the amendment becomes extinct (affirmative)

[1] The special surtax is a kind of corporate tax for which the taxation requirement is established by the transfer of assets. Since the transfer act is the taxation requirement and the transfer margin is the object of taxation, whether the transferred assets meet the taxation requirement and the tax exemption requirement should be determined on the basis of the time of transfer.

[2] The principle of non-payment in the tax law means that the pertinent tax law cannot be applied to the completed facts before the enforcement of the relevant tax law, and it does not limit the application of a new law to the taxation requirement facts that occurred thereafter. Thus, inasmuch as a new legislation that abolishs the reduction or exemption of special surtax, which is a taxation requirement for the transfer of land owned by a corporation, is only applied to the transfer that takes place after the enforcement of the new legislation, it cannot be said that the acquisition time of the relevant land, etc. or the execution authorization of redevelopment project is prior to the new legislation.

[3] If there is no express measure to amend or delete the transitional provision of the Addenda to the previous Act at the time of the amendment, the transitional provision of the Addenda does not become null and void as a matter of course, even though there is no express measure to revise or delete the transitional provision of the previous Act, but the transitional provision of the Addenda to the previous Act shall be deemed null and void, since the amendment is the same as the repeal of the previous Act and the enactment of a new Act in the case of a specialized amendment, and therefore, the transitional provision of the previous Addenda to the

[1] Article 58(1)2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3865, Dec. 26, 1986); Article 63 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666, Dec. 31, 1993); Article 59-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 124-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970, Dec. 31, 198); Article 13(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 16(1)2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 15970, Dec. 36, 198); Article 16(2)19 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 26165, Dec. 16, 28(2) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6871 delivered on March 24, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1770) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7950 delivered on January 29, 199 (Gong199Sang, 396) Supreme Court Decision 99Du8268 delivered on July 27, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 197) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20726 delivered on February 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1133), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu131 delivered on May 24, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1862) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 99Nu53989 delivered on May 25, 1995

Treatment Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Nu7079 delivered on November 15, 2000

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

1. Article 58 (1) 2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3865, Dec. 26, 1986; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act") provides that "the above provision of Article 16 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 1065, Dec. 26, 1986; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act") shall not apply to "income accruing from transfer of a building constructed in accordance with the business plan determined by the Urban Redevelopment Act" (amended by Act No. 1065, Dec. 1, 198; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act") and Article 58 (1) 1 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 1066, Dec. 26, 198; hereinafter referred to as the "former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act").

2. The special surtax is a type of corporate tax for which the taxation requirement is established by the transfer of assets, and the transfer income is subject to taxation. Thus, whether the transferred assets meet the taxation requirement and the tax exemption requirement should be determined on the basis of the time of transfer (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu6871, Mar. 24, 1995; 9Du8268, Jul. 27, 2001; 99Du8268, Jul. 27, 2001; etc.). The principle of non-payment of tax statutes means that the pertinent statutes cannot be applied to the taxation requirement completed prior to the entry into force of the pertinent tax statutes. Since the fact continues or new statutes are not limited to the application of new statutes on the facts that occurred thereafter, the new legislation that abolish the special surtax with respect to the transfer of land owned by a corporation, etc. is applied only to the transfer made after the enforcement of the tax exemption requirement, the acquisition time of the relevant land, etc. or redevelopment project cannot be seen as retroactive legislation.

In addition, tax laws should be strictly interpreted, whether it is a taxation requirement or a tax exemption requirement, and even if there is a clear provision that the previous provision applies retroactively to the previous provision as a result of the repeal of the previous provision, unless there is a clear provision that the previous provision is applied retroactively, the scope of the previous provision should not be extended without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu825 delivered on August 22, 1995, etc.). If there is no explicit provision that the transitional provision of the previous supplementary provision is amended or deleted at the time of the amendment, even if there is no express provision of the previous provision of the previous Act, the transitional provision of the supplementary provision of the previous Act is not null and void as a matter of course, but if the previous provision of the revised Act is a specialized amendment, it shall be deemed null and void since the previous provision of the supplementary provision of the previous Act and the previous provision of the supplementary provision shall not be deemed null and void, unless there are any special circumstances.

The fourth amendment, which was in force at the time of the transfer of the real estate by the Plaintiff, provides that special surtax may be reduced or exempted in accordance with the previous provisions regarding the reduction or exemption of the tax amount in the case where the land, etc. was transferred before the enforcement of the amendment, and where the transfer was made after the enforcement of the amendment, limited provisions regarding the transfer of the real estate by an urban redevelopment project implementer under the former Act are excluded from the above continuous reduction or exemption provisions, and there are no other transitional provisions, so whether to impose special surtax on the transfer of the real estate in this case should be applied as a matter of course to the fourth amendment, which is the law at the time of transfer. Meanwhile, even if the second and third amendment did not have any express provision regarding the second amendment or deletion of Article 10(2) of the Addenda of the first amendment, the first amendment and second amendment does not have any special provision on the first amendment as to the second and third amendment of the former Act, and therefore, the first amendment and second amendment of the former Act, the first and fourth amendment of the former Act, which would have no special provision on the first amendment.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, lack of reasoning, and misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In the event that Article 10(2) of the Addenda to the First Amendment Act provides that the special surtax shall continue to be exempted without setting the time limit for transfer of real estate by an implementer of an urban redevelopment project who was authorized prior to the enforcement of the amendment, the above exemption measures shall continue regardless of the subsequent amendment of the Act, or the fourth amendment merely provides that the effect of Article 10(2) of the Addenda to the First Amendment shall not be affected by the third amendment of the Act, the opinion of the grounds of appeal that the effect of Article 10(2) of the Addenda to the First Amendment cannot be accepted as a assertion contrary to the above legal principles. The Supreme Court Decision in the grounds of appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da52984, Jun. 27, 1997) is different from the case, and it is inappropriate to be invoked

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)