A. Whether Article 8(1)13 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which was pointed out as unconstitutional in a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court, can be applied retroactively to the amended land excess profit tax law

(b) Where the land on which a building is settled falls under idle land as prescribed in Article 8 (1) 13 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; and

A. On July 29, 1994, Constitutional Court Decision 92HunBa49,52 (Consolidation) decided that the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act does not conform with the Constitution. Accordingly, the National Assembly amended the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994; Article 8(1)13 of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act is pointed out to be unconstitutional in the above decision of inconsistency with the Constitution; and the former proviso of the former proviso "excluding the land, which does not fall under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 4, as the land attached to the building, and which does not fall under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 4," was amended as "excluding the land on which the building is built, and which does not fall under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 4," and the above amendment also applies retroactively to the same case as the case in question.

(b) As long as a building was built on the site at the time when the scheduled period of determination of the land excess profit tax expires, its site shall be determined as idle land only if it falls under the provisions of Article 8(1)1 through 4 of the Land Excess profit Tax Act as it falls under the land on which a building under the proviso of Article 8(1)13 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994) is settled.

Article 8(1)13 of the former Land Excess Profits Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 8(1)13 of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu20402 delivered on July 28, 1995 (195Ha, 2963) 93Nu3301 delivered on October 13, 1995 (2) 93Nu3301 delivered on October 13, 1995 (2) 93Nu7297 delivered on October 13, 1995 (2) 93Nu1036 delivered on October 13, 1995 (2) 93Nu1033 delivered on October 13, 1995 (2) 93Nu9249 delivered on July 29, 194; 93Nu10323 delivered on October 13, 1995; 93Nu3233 delivered on November 10, 1995; 92Hun-Ba329 delivered on July 29, 1994

[Judgment of the court below]

the director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2260 delivered on February 11, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 was the owner of the above company's land and the non-party 2 was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land and the non-party 1 company was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land and the non-party 2 company was the owner of the above non-party 8 company's land and the non-party 1 company was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land and the non-party 3 company was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land's land and the non-party 1 company was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land's land and the non-party 2 company was the owner of the non-party 1 company's land and the non-party 3 company was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land's land and the non-party 1 company was the owner of the above non-party 1 company's land and the non-party 10 company's shares.

2. However, the Constitutional Court decided on July 29, 1994 that the former Local Tax Act does not conform with the Constitution, and accordingly the National Assembly amended the former Local Tax Act by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994. Article 8(1)13 of the former Local Tax Act is pointed out to be unconstitutional in the above unconstitutional ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, and the former proviso of the former proviso "excluding land attached to a building leased to a building, which does not fall under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 4, of which subparagraphs 1 through 4 are excluded" is amended as "other land on which a building is settled, and which does not fall under the provisions of subparagraphs 1 through 4, is the same as the case in question."

Therefore, as determined by the court below, as long as a building was constructed on the site of this case at the time when the period of the scheduled determination of this case expired, the site of this case can be determined as idle land, etc. only when it falls under the provisions of Article 8 (1) 1 through 4 of the Revised Land Tax Act because it constitutes the land on which the building under the proviso of Article 8 (1) 13 of the Revised Land Tax Act is settled. Thus, the court below ultimately led to the application of the Act on the Scope of Effective Land, etc. which is subject to taxation, and the decision of the court below is clearly affected by the decision

3. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)