[2] Time when a significant gap between the land grade price and the publicly assessed individual land price occurs, and time to revise the land grade

[2] A significant gap between the grade price and the officially assessed individual land price does not necessarily need to arise during the preceding year of the year in which the grade is modified, and in a case where the gap already occurred was not reflected at the time of the revision of the grade or was partially reflected in the previous year, it is legitimate to revise the grade by reflecting it in whole or in part during the pertinent year, to the extent that it is reasonable in comparison

Article 80-2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same), Article 10(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), and Article 12 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14690 of Jun. 30, 1995) comprehensively takes into account each of the above provisions, since the land grade is not limited to the land grade, the officially assessed land price of the land is not determined, or the socially assessed land price of the land is clearly changed. The determination of the grade of the land is not required to reflect some of the price of the land in the previous year compared to the price of the land in question in consideration of the economic situation and the taxpayer's share.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, although the officially assessed individual land price of this case has been continuously lowered every year from 192, the land price still has been remarkably lower than the officially assessed individual land price, the defendant has continuously increased the land grade at a certain rate compared to the officially assessed individual land price every year in accordance with the guidelines for adjustment of land and table. The defendant raised the land grade in 1995 by 195 pursuant to the land and table adjustment guidelines of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which made it possible to increase the land grade by 30% compared to the officially assessed individual land price of 1995, and there was no reasonable change of the grade of 252 (class 975,00,00) of the land of this case, which was lawfully assessed in 194, the officially assessed individual land price of this case was 4,90,000 won in 1,470,000 won in 19,000 won in Seoul, and there was no change of the grade of 1,400,000 won in neighboring land price.

In addition, the increase of land grade is to increase the tax base amount in the tax amount which is the standard market value of the tax base, and even if the amount of aggregate land tax, etc. is increased due to such increase, it is not due to the increase of the tax base amount, but due to the increase of the tax rate not under the law, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the increase of the tax base amount is in accordance with the provisions

The judgment of the court below, although it is somewhat insufficient in its explanation, ruled to the effect that the decision to revise the grade of the land of this case in 1995 is legitimate as it is under the above Enforcement Decree, is just, since it has rejected the plaintiff's assertion, such as the principle of no taxation without law, the principle of guaranteeing property rights under the Constitution, and the above Enforcement Decree, and there is no error of law such as the theory

All arguments are without merit.

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 Yang Gyeong-sung (Presiding Justice)