Whether a specific area notice or a determination of a rate made by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service before the amendment of the statute to calculate the transfer margin based on the standard market price by the method of multiple rates (negative), and whether it becomes lawful after the amendment of the statute immediately after the amendment of the statute.

Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978; Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978; Presidential Decree No. 115 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978; Presidential Decree No. 9229, Dec. 30, 1978; the Commissioner of the National Tax Service publicly announced a specific area before and decided the rate without any legal basis; thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate notice or determination of a specific area. The National Tax Service’s notice or determination of a specific area by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service cannot be immediately valid after the amendment of the Act and subordinate statutes, unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 23, 45, and 60 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3098 of Dec. 5, 1978); Article 115 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9229 of Dec. 30, 1978)

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu606 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985,745) 85Nu142 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986,1394) 90Nu226 delivered on April 27, 1990 (Gong190,1191)

Republic of Korea

Head of Yongsan Tax Office (Attorney Kim J-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu3484 delivered on January 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the transfer margin was calculated based on the standard market price at the time of transfer and the acquisition price at the time of its acquisition without any specific area under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12767 of Aug. 1, 1989) because the plaintiff acquired 29 p.m. 15 p. 29 p. 6 p.m. and transferred 19 Jun. 25, 1986 a certain area under Article 115 (1) 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act without any specific area at the time of its acquisition or transfer, and the transfer price at the time of its acquisition is no more than 30 p.m. 1, 1988 p. 9 p.m., the land at issue was designated and announced by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on Feb. 15, 1981.

In light of the above, it is reasonable to determine that the above specific area notice, which was issued without the basis of the law, cannot be deemed lawful only by the above amendment of the law, and the above specific area notice, which was made without the basis of the law, and by the amendment of the Act on December 5, 1978 and the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on December 30 of the same year, should be based on the standard market price (the standard market price before the above amendment) in the case where the acquisition and transfer value cannot be based on the actual transaction price. In addition, in light of the fact that it cannot be determined that the above specific area notice, which was made without the basis of the law, cannot be deemed legitimate only by the above amendment of the law, cannot be seen as valid after the above amendment of the law, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the specific area notice and the ratio decision under the Income Tax Act, such as the novel theory.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)