Whether the scope of the application of the main provision of the amended Act may be determined by the supplementary provision before the amendment (negative)

The supplementary decree refers to the original contents of the enforcement date, transitional measures, and other matters concerning the amendment and repeal, etc. of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, which are incidental to the main rule, and therefore cannot exist independently from the main rule, and there is an incidental and supplementary effect to the main rule. Therefore, the application of the main provision of the amended Act, unless otherwise expressly provided, shall be determined solely in accordance with the supplementary provision of the amended Act, and by interpretation, the application scope of the main provision of the amended Act cannot be determined by accepting the supplementary provision of the amended Act, which is in part of the main provision of the supplementary provision of the amended Act.

Article 4-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Amended by Act No. 3196, Dec. 28, 1979); Article 6 of the Addenda; Article 4-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Amended by Act No. 3096, Mar. 25, 1978); Article 3(1) of the Addenda

Pung Special Metal Industries Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Mapo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu731 delivered on May 16, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 4-2 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act amended by Act No. 3196, Dec. 28, 1979, "where a public corporation or a domestic corporation corresponding to a small or medium enterprise prescribed by Presidential Decree has received monetary contributions from the Government, a local government, or a financial institution, and has increased capital by December 31, 1980, an amount calculated by the following formula shall be deducted from the income amount of each business year from the business year ending on or before December 31, 1982 to the final business year which ends on or after December 31, 1982," while Article 6 of the Addenda provides that "the provisions of Article 4-2 (1) shall apply from the date of the first increase in capital after January 1, 1979 to the date of the establishment of the corporation subject to the above Rule, the provisions of Article 4-2 (1) shall apply from the date of the first increase in capital until the business year which belongs to the date of the establishment of the corporation."

In addition, the main provision of the main provision of the amended Act shall only be determined in accordance with the supplementary provision of the amended Act, and the application scope of the main provision of the amended Act shall not be determined in accordance with the interpretation of the main provision of the amended Act, and the main provision of the amended Act shall not be determined in accordance with the interpretation of the main provision of the amended Act, as it is accepted in the supplementary provision of the amended Act.

In addition, Article 3272 of the above Act, which was amended by Act No. 3196, Dec. 13, 1980; Article 5 of its Addenda, provides that the same Act shall apply from the first capital increase after the enforcement of the same Act; in applying Article 3196 of the above Act, the above Act shall apply only to a corporation established before and after January 1, 1978 (the above Act shall apply from the capital increase since January 1, 1978, but it shall be applicable to a corporation established before and after March 25, 197, and the latter Act shall apply from the capital increase deduction after January 1, 1981, but it shall be limited to a corporation established before and after September 1, 199 or before March 25, 197).

In this view, the court below held that the plaintiff, a corporation established on June 16, 1978, filed a report on the tax base and tax amount of the corporate tax for the portion of 160,481,99 won on September 4, 1979, which had been operating the business, and that the above provision of Article 4-2 (1) of the former Regulation on Tax Reduction and Exemption for Income (Act No. 3196, Dec. 28, 197) was unlawful on the ground that the above provision of 115,201,99 won less the above amount of corporate tax for 18,275,85 won, 6,292, 392, 197, which had been established on the ground that the above provision of the corporate tax reduction and exemption for the portion of 197,300 won was unlawful on the ground that the above provision of the corporate tax reduction and exemption for the portion of 197,197,300 won was applied to the above provision of the corporate tax reduction and exemption for 197.

The issue is groundless.

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.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)