이행강제금부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part to be determined additionally in the following paragraphs, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that it is unlawful to calculate the standard market price of the part of the extension of the instant case on the basis of the standard value of new construction of the building in 2015 (650,000/m2), even though the construction cost is substantially lower than the general new construction price of the building by using a sandy pumps panel as a part of the wall, etc. of the part of the extension of the instant case,
However, as seen earlier, the standard market price for a building is calculated and publicly announced pursuant to Article 99 (1) 1 (b) of the Income Tax Act by multiplying the standard price for new construction of a building by the structure, use, location index by structure, and the remaining price rate by the elapsed number of years. According to the above, the circumstance that the construction of a new building was used as a material for the extension of this case is appropriately reflected in the process of multiplying the standard price for new construction of a building by the structural index. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.
B. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the enforcement fine should be calculated by applying the same as it is, even though the meaning of the “short dubing steel” is unclear among the definition of “short dubing steel structure” under the Gyeonggi-do Standard for the Adjustment of Standard Market Price of Buildings in 2015.
However, the above adjustment criteria stipulated that “a structure steel product made by a string,” as a component subsequent to a simple string, is “a structure steel product made in a certain shape, such as b, cream, H, I, and principal mold,” and specify the meaning thereof. Therefore, it is difficult to view the objective meaning of the above text and text as unclear.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. The judgment of the first instance court at the conclusion is justifiable.
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.