Whether it is invalid that Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act provides that "a factory building" under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act shall be excluded from an unauthorized building (negative)

Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act provides that "factory buildings" under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act excludes unauthorized buildings under Article 11 (3) of the Enforcement Decree. The purport of Article 8 (1) 1 and (5) of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, Article 194-15 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 104-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 104-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, are to prevent real estate speculation by recovering land excess gains from a national policy perspective, which originally intends to restrain real estate speculation, so as to ensure equity in tax burden, stability of land price, and efficient use of land, and building constructed without permission, which disregards legitimate procedures such as the Building Act, is subject to corrective measures such as removal even if it is used as a new factory building, and if it is enacted by the National Tax Act, it is not likely that it will be unlawful within the scope of delegation or delegation.

Articles 59 and 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 3, 8(1)1 and (5) of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act; Articles 7(1) and 11(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act; Article 194-15(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 104-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 104-11 of the Enforcement Rule of the

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Dai-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu40327 delivered on May 8, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the principle of no taxation without law, it is identical to the theory that the delegation of a building can be effective only to the matters delegated by the upper laws and subordinate statutes. However, the provisions of Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14470 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") stipulate that the land excess profit-making tax (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "Land Tax Act") shall be excluded from the scope of the existing provisions of Article 8 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which provides that the new provisions of Article 11 (3) of the Enforcement Decree shall be excluded from the standard land for factories without permission for the same purpose as those of the previous 4th Amendment, which are not applicable mutatis mutandis to the provisions of Article 8 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, which stipulate that the new provisions shall be excluded from the standard land for factories.

According to the records, the above land of this case has two without permission greenhouses since before December 31, 1989, and non-party 1 and non-party 2, who leased the land of this case from the plaintiffs, were engaged in wood retail business and chemical company/retailing business in the trade name of "○○ wood joint board" and "△△△△ History", and these plastic houses are not listed in the property tax ledger and do not fall under a factory for which a registration certificate has been issued pursuant to Article 3 of the Addenda to the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act. Thus, if the facts are identical, the land of this case is a land used for lease, but the building is not a villa or a house, but a building is not a villa or a house, and thus, it falls under the land annexed to a building without permission under Article 8 (1) 4 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Tax Act and is ultimately subject to imposition of Article 25 (2) and Article 25 (1) 4 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 15195-2) of the first 19.

Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' claim and immediately decided that the disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the land in this case does not fall under the land annexed to a factory building excluded from the taxable object of the land excess profit tax under Article 8 (1) 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Tax Act and Article 7 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Tax Act is somewhat insufficient in explaining the taxation requirements of the disposition of this case, but there is no error of law in the incomplete deliberation as to the use of a legal scenario or a building that affected the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit. It is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)