[2] In a case where the competent administrative agency imposed property tax, etc. in 2007 on the basis of the officially announced house price announced to the owner of a newly-built house Gap, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle on the ground that the above disposition was unlawful on the ground that Eul's house can not be seen as one of the houses, and it can be seen as a "similar neighboring house" under the proviso of Article 142 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, although it is difficult to view Eul's house as a "similar neighboring house," and on the ground that the amount equivalent to the property tax amount of Eul's house for the immediately preceding year is remarkably different from the property tax amount imposed on Eul because the officially announced house price of Eul's house was low compared to Eul's house price per unit area and the house price of Byung's house is similar to the officially announced house price per unit area, but Eul's house and other house price of Byung's house are similar to the amount of property tax in the immediately preceding year

Article 195-2 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9302, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides for an amount equivalent to 150/100 of the amount of property tax calculated on the property concerned exceeds 150/100 of the amount equivalent to the property tax on the property concerned of the immediately preceding year calculated by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree: Provided, That in cases of a house whose officially announced housing price in the current year under Article 111 (2) 1 is not more than 60 million won, the amount equivalent to the property tax amount calculated under the following subparagraph shall be the amount to be collected in the current year; and in cases of a house whose officially announced housing price is more than 30 million won but not more than 60 million won, the amount equivalent to the property tax on the house concerned before the immediately preceding year’s public announced housing price exceeds 110/100 of the amount equivalent to the property tax on the house concerned; and in cases of a house, the amount equivalent to the property tax amount determined by Presidential Decree No. 2510.7.

The maximum tax burden system prescribed in Article 195-2 of the Act is a system introduced to prevent a rapid increase in tax burden due to the change of the method of calculating the tax base of property tax from the cost-oriented method to the market price from 2005 to the cost-oriented method. In applying the above maximum tax burden system, the proviso of this case was newly established to maintain the equity in taxation between the existing house and the newly constructed and expanded house to which only the market price is applied, and the cost-oriented method has not properly reflected the market price in the tax base. Considering that the previous cost-oriented method has influenced the tax base such as the size, size, form, structure, location of the building and the number of years, the officially announced house price cited as the method of determining the "similar neighboring house" of the proviso of this case is merely an example, and whether the "similar neighboring house" constitutes the "similar neighboring house" should be determined by comprehensively considering the similarity between the size, size, type, structure, location, location, and market price per unit as well as the officially announced house price.

According to the evidence of the court below and the court below, (1) the size of 200, 200, 369, 200, 200, 70, 200, 70, 40, 200, 200, 70, 200, 70, 200, 200, 70, 200, 70, 60, 200, 200, 70, 200, 200, 70, 60, 60, 70, 200, 200, 70, 60, 200, 20, 70, 200, 206, 70, 60, 60, 200, 70, 200, 70, 206, 206, 70,00

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view it as a “similar neighboring house” under the proviso of this case in relation to the housing of this case. Rather, there is room to regard it as one of the apartments other than the kings, such as Megaras, dystyp, purification well-being, etc. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the amount equivalent to the property tax of the previous year on the housing of this case constitutes “similar neighboring house” under the proviso of this case, on the ground that it was remarkably different from the property tax amount levied on Thais for the immediately preceding year, on the ground that the amount equivalent to the property tax of the previous year on the housing of this case is not considered to be a “similar neighboring house” under the proviso of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the proviso of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the allegation in the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)