A. Whether Article 59-3 (2) 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Article 19 (2) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12460, Dec. 30, 1989) provides for the exemption requirements of special surtax (affirmative)

B. Whether other fixed assets than those stipulated in Article 124-6(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act can be interpreted as included in the "fixed assets" under Article 59-3(2)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (negative)

A. Article 59-3 (2) 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Article 19 (2) of the Addenda of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, which was deleted on December 30, 1989) provides that the scope of transferred assets shall be exempted from special surtax as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, as well as that of delegation by the Presidential Decree. Thus, Article 124-6 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree, Dec. 30, 1989) shall be deemed to stipulate the requirements for exemption from special surtax by delegation of the above Act

B. Under the principle of no taxation without law, or the interpretation of tax laws and regulations must be strict, or expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation shall not be permitted, and it shall be deemed that the assets acquired by the corporation through the transfer of the land, etc. and its replacement meet the requirements for exemption from taxation is limited to the "land, building, machinery, or apparatus" under Article 124-6 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is delegated by Article 59-3 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and it is not permissible to interpret other fixed assets as included therein.

A.B. Article 59-3(2)2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Article 19(2) of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act No. 4165, Dec. 30, 1989); Article 124-6(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12878, Dec. 30, 1989). Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

B. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu70 decided Jun. 12, 1984 (Gong1984, 1290) and 86Nu92 decided May 26, 1987 (Gong1987, 1079)

Dongjin bus Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

hill of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu988 delivered on October 31, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, a corporation operating urban bus transportation business, acquired three parcels of land as indicated in the judgment on December 30, 1980 and used them for business purposes, and acquired buildings, structures, machinery, and vehicles as fixed assets for new business purposes, and applied for reduction of KRW 68,211,37 of the above transferred assets at the time of filing a corporate tax return in 198 and filing an application for reduction of KRW 68,211,37 of the special surtax at the time of the above transfer of the corporation tax in 198. Accordingly, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s imposition disposition of this case was unlawful for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets other than the above fixed assets newly acquired by the Plaintiff under Article 124-6(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, on the premise that it did not conflict between the parties, and that the above provision did not clearly stipulate the scope of fixed assets for the purpose of acquiring fixed assets other than the above fixed assets under Article 59-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree.

(2) However, Article 59-3(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced in the taxable period of this case (Article 19(2) of the Addenda of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, provides that "the following income shall be exempted from special surtax under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree." 2. Until the date of transfer, it is clear that this provision delegates the scope of transferred assets to the Presidential Decree, as well as that it provides that special surtax shall be exempted under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Thus, it shall be deemed that Article 124-6(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (the removal on December 30, 1989) provides that "the following income shall be transferred for the purpose of acquiring other fixed assets, such as land directly used for the business of the corporation (excluding stock farm, sales and rental business) for two or more consecutive years prior to the date of transfer." It shall not be deemed that Article 124-3(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the requirement of exemption from special surtax, and it shall not be applied to the above land.

The court below held that the scope of fixed assets acquired as a substitute is not delegated to the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the exemption of special surtax of a corporation by interpreting the above corporate tax law. Therefore, the argument that points this out is reasonable.

(3) In addition, the plaintiff stated in the complaint as stated in the first pleading date of the court below that the defendant took measures to exempt the buildings, structures, and machinery from the fixed assets newly acquired by the plaintiff. However, the defendant stated in the preparatory brief dated August 13, 1990 stated in the second pleading date of the court below that the disposition of this case cannot be subject to reduction and exemption from the buildings, machinery, and equipment. The defendant's reason for the above disposition of taxation is recognized by the evidence No. 4-2 and evidence No. 1-4, and the defendant's reasons for the disposition of this case are also acknowledged by the evidence No. 4-4 and the evidence No. 1-4. The court below erred by misapprehending that the parties did not dispute the fact that the above structure was exempted from the taxes of this case. Accordingly, the court below added to the purport that the part of

(4) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)