In writing only: email and e-filing

KSTGeneral information, not legal advice

Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation

Legal nature of the National Tax Service's Regulations on Handling Property Tax Affairs and whether it provides a statutory basis for taxation at actual transaction value

Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean

Supreme Court, Sept. 29, 1987, 86Nu484 (judgment)

Case name: 양도소득세부과처분취소

Official text on the National Law Information Center

  1. Question

    May Article 72 (3) of the Regulations on Handling Property Tax Affairs, which is in the form of a directive of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, serve as a statutory basis for imposing income tax on capital gains at the actual transaction value?

  2. Holding

    In principle, administrative rules have no external binding force. However, where a statute grants an administrative agency the authority to determine specific matters without specifying the procedure or method, such administrative rule combines with the delegating statute and has the effect of delegated legislation. The Supreme Court held that, unless there are special circumstances, such as that a transaction designation under the above provision exceeding the limits of the delegation, it serves as a statutory basis for taxation at the actual transaction value.

    Summary of the holding, verbatim

    비록 위 재산제세사무처리규정이 국세청장의 훈령형식으로 되어 있다 하더라도 이에 의한 거래지정은 소득세법시행령의 위임에 따라 그 규정의 내용을 보충하는 기능을 가지면서 그와 결합하여 대외적 효력을 발생하게 된다

    Unofficial English translation

    Even though the above Regulations on the Handling of Property Tax Affairs are in the form of a directive of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the designation of transaction thereunder, acting in accordance with the delegation under the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, has the function of supplementing the contents of those provisions and, combined therewith, produces external effect.
  3. Disposition

    Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision

    원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

    Unofficial English translation

    The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
  4. Form of the test

    Elements stated Stated in the decision

    이와 같은 행정규칙, 규정은 당해 법령의 위임한계를 벗어나지 아니하는 한 그것들과 결합하여 대외적인 구속력이 있는 법규명령으로서의 효력을 갖게 된다

    Unofficial English translation

    Such administrative rules and regulations, provided that they do not exceed the limits of the delegation under the statute concerned, take effect, combined with those statutes, as delegated legislation possessing external binding force.
  5. Factors

    • 법령의 규정이 특정행정기관에게 그 법령내용의 구체적 사항을 정할 수 있는 권한을 부여하면서
    • 그 권한행사의 절차나 방법을 특정하고 있지 아니한 관계로
    • 수임행정기관이 행정규칙의 형식으로 그 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정하고 있다면
    • 당해 법령의 위임한계를 벗어나지 아니하는 한

    Unofficial English translation

    • Where the provisions of a statute grant a specific administrative agency the authority to determine specific matters of the contents of that statute,

    • and since they do not prescribe the procedure or method of exercising that authority,

    • if the delegated administrative agency specifically determines by way of an administrative rule matters that are to become the contents of that statute,

    • provided that it does not exceed the limits of the delegation under the statute concerned,

  6. Relation to precedent

    States a new standard Read from the decision

    행정기관에 법령의 구체적 내용을 보충할 권한을 부여한 법령규정의 효력에 의하여 그 내용을 보충하는 기능을 갖게 된다

    Unofficial English translation

    By virtue of the effect of the statutory provision granting an administrative agency the authority to supplement the specific contents of a statute, it has the function of supplementing those contents.

    Decisions referred to

    None listed

  7. Burden of proof

    Not addressed Not in the decision

  8. Open question and revisit condition

    By what criteria is it determined whether a supplementary provision in the form of a directive exceeds the limits of the delegation set by the delegating statute?

    If the case law on the provisions of the Income Tax Act applying the actual transaction value, or on delegations in the form of administrative rules, changes, this reading will be checked again.

Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check

7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16

In comparison with an independent reading by another AI model (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on axis 6 (Relation to precedent).

Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”

Insofar as the original text sets out general legal principles on the external effect of administrative rules, it may be read as stating a new standard; but because it does not clarify its relationship to earlier decisions, it may also be read as cannot be confirmed.

행정기관에 법령의 구체적 내용을 보충할 권한을 부여한 법령규정의 효력에 의하여 그 내용을 보충하는 기능을 갖게 된다

Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)

Lower-court contrast & scope of application

Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding

Lower-court context: The court below held that the provision of the Regulations on Handling Property Tax Affairs is no more than an administrative rule concerning the operational policy of tax administration for lower administrative agencies or the interpretation and application of statutes, and does not bind the people or the courts, and that Article 170, paragraph (4), subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act alone cannot be regarded as having clearly prescribed the requirements for taxation at the actual transaction value. Accordingly, holding that the tax disposition lacked a statutory basis, the court below ordered its revocation.

Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court took the view that a transaction designation under the above provision supplements the content of the delegation under the Enforcement Decree and, combined with it, has external effect. The court below should have examined whether the plaintiff's transfer of assets fell within the types of speculative transactions enumerated in the provision and then determined whether taxation was appropriate; as it failed to do so, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case on the ground of misapprehension of legal principles and failure to exhaust deliberations.

Distinguishing conditions

  • Where the higher statute has not granted an administrative agency the authority to determine specific matters, or has specified the procedure or method for exercising that authority
  • Where the administrative rule, irrespective of the scope of the delegation, merely sets forth simple work-handling guidelines or standards for the interpretation of statutes
  • Where the content of the supplementary provision exceeds the limits of the delegation set by the delegating statute

Record verification notes

Before asserting the same conclusion, one must first confirm whether the administrative rule in question is based on an express delegation from the higher statute, whether its content does not exceed the limits of the delegation, and whether the transaction in issue actually falls within the types enumerated in the provision.

From the official text

Points at issue

가. 행정규칙의 법규성 나. 재산제세사무처리규정 제72조 제3항이 양도소득세의 실지거래가액에 의한 과세의 법령상 근거가 될 수 있는지 여부(적극)

Unofficial English translation

a. Legal normative effect of administrative rules / b. Whether Article 72 (3) of the Regulations on the Handling of Property Tax Affairs may serve as a statutory ground for taxation based on the actual transaction price in imposing transfer income tax (affirmative)

Summary of the holding

가. 상급행정기관이 하급행정기관에 대하여 업무처리지침이나 법령의 해석적용에 관한 기준을 정하여서 발하는 이른바 행정규칙은 일반적으로 행정조직 내부에서만 효력을 가질뿐 대외적인 구속력을 갖는 것은 아니지만, 법령의 규정이 특정행정기관에게 그 법령내용의 구체적 사항을 정할 수 있는 권한을 부여하면서 그 권한행사의 절차나 방법을 특정하고 있지 아니한 관계로 수임행정기관이 행정규칙의 형식으로 그 법령의 내용이 될 사항을 구체적으로 정하고 있다면 그와 같은 행정규칙, 규정은 행정규칙이 갖는 일반적 효력으로서가 아니라, 행정기관에 법령의 구체적 내용을 보충할 권한을 부여한 법령규정의 효력에 의하여 그 내용을 보충하는 기능을 갖게 된다 할 것이므로 이와 같은 행정규칙, 규정은 당해 법령의 위임한계를 벗어나지 아니하는 한 그것들과 결합하여 대외적인 구속력이 있는 법규명령으로서의 효력을 갖게 된다. 나. 소득세법 (1982.12.21. 법률 제3576호로 개정된 것) 제23조 제4항, 제45조 제1항 제1호에서 양도소득세의 양도차익을 계산함에 있어 실지거래가액이 적용될 경우를 대통령령에 위임함으로써 동법시행령(1982.12.31. 대통령령 제10977호로 개정된 것) 제170조 제4항 제2호가 위 위임규정에 따라 양도소득세의 실지거래가액이 적용될 경우의 하나로서 국세청장으로 하여금 양도소득세의 실지거래가액이 적용될 부동산투기억제를 위하여 필요하다고 인정되는 거래를 지정하게 하면서 그 지정의 절차나 방법에 관하여 아무런 제한을 두고 있지 아니하고 있어 이에 따라 국세청장이 재산제세사무처리규정 제72조 제3항에서 양도소득세의 실지거래가액이 적용될 부동산투기억제를 위하여 필요하다고 인정되는 거래의 유형을 열거하고 있으므로, 이는 비록 위 재산제세사무처리규정이 국세청장의 훈령형식으로 되어 있다 하더라도 이에 의한 거래지정은 소득세법시행령의 위임에 따라 그 규정의 내용을 보충하는 기능을 가지면서 그와 결합하여 대외적 효력을 발생하게 된다 할 것이므로 그 보충규정의 내용이 위 법령의 위임한계를 벗어났다는 등 특별한 사정이 없는 한 양도소득세의 실지거래가액에 의한 과세의 법령상의 근거가 된다.

Order

원심판결을 파기하고 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.

Unofficial English translation

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

Provisions referred to

헌법 제50조, 제70조, 소득세법(1982.12.21 법률 제3576호로 개정) 제23조 제4항, 제45조 제1항 제1호, 소득세법시행령(1982.12.31 대통령령 제10977호로 개정) 제170조 제4항 제2호, 재산제세사무처리규정 제72조 제3항

Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.

Back to the ledger
You are reading PRO SE
RISCON Labsrisconlabs.com