[1] Criteria for determining the predictability of taxation requirements

[2] Meaning of "the date to be incorporated into a residential area, etc. under the Urban Planning Act" under Article 54 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and whether Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act and public notice of the determination of urban planning under Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act are in violation of the Constitution (negative)

[1] Article 59 of the Constitution / [2] Articles 54(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14477 of Dec. 31, 1994), Articles 12 and 13 of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6243 of Jan. 28, 200), Article 59 of the Constitution

[1] Constitutional Court en banc Order 96Hun-Ba92 delivered on October 30, 1997 (Hun-Ba24, 716) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18434 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 338), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu585 delivered on December 12, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 97Nu8267 delivered on December 12, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 97Da38374 delivered on September 25, 1998 (Gong203Du4034 delivered on December 9, 2004, 134)

Applicant

The request for unconstitutionality review is dismissed.

In light of the legislative intent of Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution that stipulate the so-called principle of no taxation to ensure the legal stability and predictability of people's lives by guaranteeing the property rights of the people by prescribing the taxation requirements under the law enacted by the National Assembly as the representative organ of the people, the existence of predictability shall not be determined with only one specific provision, but shall be determined with organic and systematic integration of the relevant provisions, and the whole relevant provisions shall be examined specifically and individually according to the nature of each applicable law (see Constitutional Court Order 96Hun-Ba92 delivered on October 30, 1997).

Article 12 (1) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6234, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "former Urban Planning Act") provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall, ex officio or upon the application of the urban planning maker under Article 11, hear the opinions of the local councils concerned, and make a decision on the matters as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Paragraph (4) of the same Article provides that when the Minister of Construction and Transportation has determined the urban planning under paragraph (1) of the same Article, he shall, without delay, notify the determined urban planning as prescribed by the Presidential Decree and send it to the head of Si/Gun for public inspection. Paragraph (1) of Article 13 of the same Act provides that the head of Si/Gun shall, upon the determination of the urban planning under Article 12 (4) of the former Urban Planning Act (amended by Act No. 6234, Jan. 28, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "former Urban Planning Act") and Paragraph (4) of the same Article 197 of the former Urban Planning Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Therefore, even if Article 12 and Article 13 of the former Urban Planning Act do not stipulate "the date of incorporation into a residential area, etc. under the Urban Planning Act" under Article 54 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it cannot be deemed that the existence and scope of tax liability can not be predicted, or that the legal stability in the economic life of the people can be harmed by enabling arbitrary interpretation and enforcement of laws. Thus, it cannot be said that Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act and Article 13 of the Notice of Decision on Urban Planning under Article 12 of the former Urban Planning Act are in violation of Article 59 of the Constitution that provides for no taxation without law.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the motion for unconstitutionality of this case.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)