A. The meaning of "land subject to taxation of land excess profit tax" under Article 66-3 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989 and amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) and the time of determination as to whether it falls under such category (=transfer date)

B. Whether Article 20-6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance No. 1822 of Apr. 10, 1990 and amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1850 of Mar. 13, 191) is invalid beyond the scope of the parent law without any delegation clause (negative)

A. The phrase “land subject to the land excess profit tax under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act” as stipulated in Article 66-3 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165, Dec. 30, 1989; Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990) refers to “land subject to the land excess profit tax under the provisions of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act” and the time of determination as to whether it falls under idle land shall be interpreted to be based on the date of transfer according to the general principles of imposition of capital gains tax as of the date of transfer.

B. Article 20-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 182 of Apr. 10, 1990 and amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1850 of Mar. 13, 1991) provides that “The determination of whether the land is subject to the land excess profit tax under the provisions of Article 66-3 of the Act shall be based on whether the land falls under the idle land as of the date of transfer shall be based on whether it falls under the idle land as of the date of transfer shall

A. Article 66-3(b) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989 and amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu27190 delivered on September 30, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 66-3 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989 and amended by Act No. 4285 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that "land subject to the land excess profit tax under the Land Excess profit Tax Act" means "land subject to the land excess profit tax under Articles 8 and 9 of the Land Excess Income Tax Act" and it is reasonable to interpret that the time of determination as to whether such idle land falls under such idle land is based on the date of transfer in accordance with the general principle of imposition of capital gains tax, even though the time of determination as to whether it is such idle land is not separately provided.

Therefore, in Article 20-6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance No. 1822 of Apr. 10, 1990, and amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1850 of Mar. 13, 1991), the determination of whether the land is subject to the land excess profit tax under Article 66-3 of the Act shall be based on whether the land falls under the idle land as of the date of transfer shall be based on whether it falls under the idle land as of the date of transfer shall be based on whether it falls under

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the land of this case falls under idle land as of the date of transfer, and the defendant's disposition of this case is lawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

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