(a) Abolition or amendment of tax-related Acts and subordinate statutes and the scope of tax obligations;

(b) The method of calculating gains on transfer where no preliminary return on transfer of assets or final return on tax base is filed.

A. The establishment and scope of a tax obligation should only be governed by a tax law, and a tax obligation shall be established at the time of the completion of the taxation requirements as provided by each tax law. If a tax law is repealed or amended, it shall be effective even if the law is repealed or amended, and it shall be deemed that it shall continue to be effective only for the facts arising thereafter.

(b) In calculating capital gains, the gains from transfer shall be calculated based on the current market price, because it falls under cases where the actual transaction price is unknown without any prior return or final return on tax base.

(a) Articles 12(2) and 95 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Articles 23 and 95 of the Income Tax Act; Article 100 of the Income Tax Act; Article 170 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 64Nu93 delivered on December 15, 1964, 70Nu19 delivered on March 24, 1970. Supreme Court Decision 77Nu22 delivered on December 27, 197, 79Nu394 delivered on March 11, 1980

Plaintiff 1, 200

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu13 delivered on February 17, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

The establishment and scope of a tax obligation shall only be governed by a tax law, and the tax obligation shall be established at the time when the tax requirements prescribed by each tax law are completed (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu93, Dec. 15, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 70Nu19, Mar. 24, 1970). In a case where a tax law is repealed or amended, the tax law shall continue to be effective for the case where the elements of the establishment prescribed by the tax law are completed until the repeal or amendment of the tax law, and it shall be deemed that only the facts that occurred thereafter shall be invalidated.

Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 7955, Jan. 21, 1976) applied in this case was enforced from January 1, 1976, which was the date of enforcement of the Act No. 2796, which was amended by Act No. 8351, Dec. 31, 1976; Article 170(4) of the Enforcement Decree was amended by Presidential Decree No. 7458, Dec. 31, 1974; it was enforced from January 1, 1975; Presidential Decree No. 9698, Jan. 1, 1979; Presidential Decree No. 19698, Jan. 1, 198; Presidential Decree No. 19796, Dec. 1, 1980; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Dec. 31, 1976>

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to Articles 170(5) and 23(5) of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 2796, Dec. 22, 1975) at the time of transfer of real estate, the transfer value shall be based on the actual transaction value, and where the actual transaction value is unclear, the transfer value shall be based on the current transaction value at the time of transfer of the assets. According to Article 170(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (Act No. 7955, Jan. 21, 1976), if a resident who transfers assets under subparagraphs of Article 23(1) of the Income Tax Act fails to make the marginal transaction value under Article 95 of the same Act, the acquisition value assessed at the time of transfer as the current transaction value at the time of the transfer of the assets and the special deduction amount under Article 46 of the same Enforcement Decree shall be calculated by deducting the actual transaction value at the time of acquisition from the actual transaction value at the time of the transfer of the real estate at the time of the transfer, it shall be reasonable to calculate the actual transaction value.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff filed a provisional registration under the name of the non-party 1 against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 3, 410 shares in Daegu City ( Address omitted) and the 4.10 shares in the plaintiff's possession, but the non-party 1 did not perform his obligation, and the non-party 1 did not accept the plaintiff's assertion that he returned to the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 as a sale with a special contract for sale. Upon review of the records, the court below's above measures are acceptable, and there is no error

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)