[개별공시지가결정공고처분취소][공2001.9.15.(138),1983]
[1] The method of calculating the officially assessed individual land price and the meaning of "inseparably in a relationship for use" where multiple parcels of land are collectively indivisible for use
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the above ground buildings cannot be deemed to have an indivisible relationship for their structural structure or use on the ground that the above ground buildings can not be deemed to have an indivisible relationship with the dispositions determined by a single adjustment of the officially assessed individual land price, by evaluating that several lots of land
[1] In determining the officially assessed individual land price under Articles 10 and 10-2 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 28, 2000), in case where a group of lands are indivisible in terms of usage by forming a group of lands, it is reasonable to evaluate the whole group of lands as one parcel, and to investigate the characteristics of lands as one parcel, and evaluate the whole at a single price for the purpose of use, and "in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" refers to a case where the situation in which a group of lands are used is deemed reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects, and in terms of the formation of value of
[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the above ground buildings cannot be deemed to have an indivisible relationship for their structural structure or use on the ground that the above ground buildings can not be deemed to have an indivisible relation with the dispositions determined by a single adjustment of the officially assessed individual land price, by evaluating that several parcels of land are
[1] Articles 10 and 10-2 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 28, 2000) / [2] Articles 10 and 10-2 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 28, 200)
[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu18298 delivered on October 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3655), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3125 delivered on December 22, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 245) Supreme Court Decision 98Du948 delivered on September 29, 200
Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Park Jae-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The head of the Gu of the Busan Metropolitan City
Busan High Court Decision 98Nu1918 delivered on July 16, 1999
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. In determining the officially assessed individual land price under Articles 10 and 10-2 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 6237 of Jan. 28, 2000), in case where several parcels of land are indivisible in terms of use by forming a group of lands, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to consider the whole group of lands as one parcel of land and evaluate the whole value of the land at a single price (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3125, Dec. 22, 1998). The term "case of indivisible relationship for use" refers to a case where the situation in which the land is used as a group of lands is in a relationship that is deemed reasonable and reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects in terms of the formation of value of the relevant land.
2. The court below found the Defendant’s determination of each of the instant dispositions, excluding B and A, on the ground that the Defendant’s determination of the officially assessed land price of the instant land 1 was made and publicly announced as KRW 2.3 million per square meter per square meter, and KRW 2.9 million per square meter per 2 and KRW 3,000 per square meter (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) and that, upon Plaintiff 2’s filing of an objection, the Plaintiff’s determination was made on August 26, 1997, on the ground that the land was adjacent to each of the instant lands on August 26, 1997, on the ground that Plaintiff A and B were in an indivisible relationship with each of the instant lands, and that each of the instant lands excluding B and A were in an indivisible relationship with each of the instant lands 2.1 million per square meter, by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the Defendant, the lower court found the facts of the assessment of each of the instant lands 1 and B, including the ownership of each of the instant land and buildings A, building structure.
Furthermore, the lower court determined that each of the instant lands, A, and B were unlawful since each of the instant lands, A, and B were built on a passage between the instant building and the building on the instant land, and each of the instant buildings was connected to each other, but each of the buildings was constructed at a separate time and did not connect the basic building or underground floors, and the number of floors and structures were different from each other, and the ownership relationship was not inconsistent with each other. In full view of the circumstances that the building on each of the instant lands is in an indivisible relationship for building A, B, and the building structure or use on each of the instant lands, the lower court assessed each of the instant lands, A, and B
In light of the records, the above legal principles, and the relevant laws, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of legal principles as to the discretion of the administrative agency, or omission
The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since they differ from other cases.
In addition, the record reveals that there is no fundamental change in the structure and current use of each of the lands of this case, A, B, and each of the lands of this case after the disposition of this case. Nevertheless, in the decision of the officially assessed individual land price of 1999, if the defendant did not evaluate each of the lands of this case and A and B as a group of lands, such circumstance may also be considered as one ground for determining the illegality of the disposition of this case. Thus, the decision of the court below which made the ground for determining the illegality of the disposition of this case as the ground for
All arguments in the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.
3. Therefore, all appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.
Justices Shin Shin-chul (Presiding Justice)