The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 5-2, and Eul evidence No. 3 in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, and there are no other objections.

가. 원고는 1989. 3. 23. ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지 임야 2,182평방미터(이하 이 사건 토지라고 한다)를 취득하여 1992. 12. 31. 현재까지 이를 소유하고 있다.

B. Based on the officially assessed individual land price of the above land as of January 1, 1990, the Defendant calculated the land price of the above land as of January 1, 1993, 654,60,000 won as of January 1, 1990, based on the officially assessed individual land price of the above land as of January 1, 1993, and calculated the land price of the above land as of January 1, 1993 as KRW 1,171,724,00, respectively, based on the officially assessed individual land price of the above land as of January 1, 1993. The Defendant imposed the land price of the above land after deducting KRW 291,493,380, the officially assessed land price of the above last day of the taxable period and the increase in land price of the above last day after deducting KRW 225,640,640,620 as the tax base, and imposed the above tax rate of KRW 31,2314,2000.

2. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legitimate in accordance with the above disposition grounds and related Acts and subordinate statutes. The plaintiff (1) in this case is a forest within a general residential area and the construction of the above land on the above land should prior to the alteration of the form and quality. According to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the rules on the permission standards for the alteration of the form and quality of land, etc., the plaintiff can obtain permission for the alteration of form and quality only if urban infrastructure such as roads, water and sewage, etc. are installed around the above land, but it is impossible to obtain permission for the alteration of form and quality since some of the above land is designated as a site for a road by urban planning and it is impossible to construct the above land on the above land because it is impossible to do so. Thus, the above land constitutes a land which is not deemed a idle land due to the prohibition of use due to the restriction of laws and regulations under Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act or other unavoidable reasons, and the disposition of this case is unlawful under the premise that the above disposition of this case is a idle land under the above imposition rate of the land price of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

(1) Article 3(1) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993) provides that the land excess profit-making tax shall be imposed on the land excess profit generated from such idle land. Article 8(1) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that the scope of the idle land owned by an individual shall be land falling under one of the following subparagraphs 7, and Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the same Act shall apply to the above excess profit-making tax. Article 8(3) of the same Act provides that the amended Enforcement Decree No. 97 of the Land Excess Profit Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1961 of Jun. 1, 1993) provides that the amended Enforcement Decree No. 97 of the same Act shall not apply to the land excess profit-making tax (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1974 of the same Act).

(2) On the other hand, Article 5-2 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate the criteria for permission for changing the form and quality of land upon delegation of Article 4 (2) of the Regulations on the Standards, etc. for Permission for changing the form and quality of land (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 547 of Jan. 2, 1994) provides that the head of a Si/Gun shall not grant permission unless an urban planning on roads, waterworks, etc. is established in the applied area in case of an application for permission for changing the form and quality of land for the purpose of constructing residential buildings: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the following cases, and subparagraph 1 provides that a person who intends to obtain permission for changing the form and quality of land in an area other

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence presented above, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 4 through Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 13-2, Eul evidence 14, Eul evidence 15, and the whole purport of the oral argument, and no other counter evidence exists.

(1) The instant land is the land that does not fall under the forest land stipulated in Article 8 (1) 7 (a) through (h) of the amended Land Excess Profit Tax Act. The instant land and a group of lands adjacent thereto are general residential areas from the time the Plaintiff acquired the said land to the end of the relevant imposition period. The relevant specific use area is a forest and land use is not equipped with urban infrastructure, such as roads and waterworks, but part of the instant land is designated and publicly notified as the planned site for the construction of a 6-meter road according to the urban planning.

(2) On August 17, 1993, the Plaintiff made a reply to the Defendant on August 17, 1993, to the effect that the Defendant’s question about whether to permit the alteration of the form and quality of the instant land was defective, and that the instant land falls under a general residential area, where the permission for the alteration of the form and quality can be granted, or where urban infrastructure is insufficient, and that if a specific construction plan, etc. is formulated and submitted, it shall be determined according to the results of deliberation by

(3) On the other hand, in determining the officially assessed individual land price of this case in 193, the defendant investigated the characteristics of the land of this case as the comparative standard land of 240 land of this case, and compared to those of the above comparative standard land, calculated the land price by applying the ratification rate on the land price ratification table offered by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on the officially assessed land price of the above comparative standard land according to the difference in the characteristics of the land, and determined the officially assessed land price of this case as 537,000 won per square meter in consideration of other individual land price formation factors.

D. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, even if the land in this case belongs to a general residential area and does not have a specific plan for the construction of urban infrastructure, etc. under such circumstances, an application for permission for change of the form and quality may not be filed. However, if an application for permission for change of the form and quality is filed under the condition of the construction of urban infrastructure, such as roads and waterworks, it seems that the construction of the above facilities is practically impossible without joint development) by the joint development of neighboring land owners, the land in this case cannot be deemed as falling under a land which goes beyond the scope of ordinary restrictions and is subject to deliberation by the Urban Planning Deliberation Committee on the issue of whether to permit change of the form and quality. Since the above land cannot be deemed as falling under the category and quality of the land in this case, the land in this case is not subject to restriction on the use of the land in this case since it is not subject to restriction on the use of the land in this case due to the lack of the purpose of the above Act or the above restriction on the use of the land in this case as part of the land in this case's land.

(2) Next, as to the assertion that the officially assessed land price in 1993 of the instant land, which was the basis of calculating the land excess profit, is remarkably unfair, according to the above facts of recognition, the procedure for the Defendant to determine the officially assessed land price of the instant land is lawful as it is in accordance with the joint investigation guidelines for individual land prices (the Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of March 29, 191). Since there is a difference in land characteristics for each land, the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed to be significantly unfair, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is groundless.

(3) However, as seen earlier, the Elementary and Secondary Tax Act amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994 revised the tax base provision (Article 11) and the tax rate provision (Article 12) that pointed out as unconstitutional in the Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution, and newly established the basic deduction provision that deducts two million won from the land excess profit in the pertinent taxable period when calculating the tax base (Article 11-2). The above amended provision should be applied retroactively to the instant case on the grounds as seen earlier. Thus, if the land excess profit tax is calculated pursuant to the above amended provision, the part exceeding the above recognized tax amount is unlawful, as shown in the calculation sheet.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, among the disposition of this case, the part of the disposition of this case exceeding KRW 109,820,310 of the above recognition's land excess profit tax is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognition's scope and accepted it within the above recognition's scope, the remaining claim is dismissed by unfair and unfair, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 92 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act as to the