[1] The method of appeal against the determination of individual land price

[2] In the case of the above [1], the period for claiming a reinvestigation of the individual land price determination

[3] The scope of binding force of the ruling

[4] The case holding that where a lawsuit claiming cancellation of individual land price is filed with the lapse of the re-audit and the administrative appeal period, it is inappropriate due to the failure to go through the previous trial procedure

[5] Time when a significant gap between the land grade and the individual land price occurred, and time to revise the land grade

[6] In the calculation of individual land price, whether it is bound in the order of choice standards in the construction division's method of determining the standard of comparison when selecting the standard of comparison and the standard of comparison when selecting the standard of comparison (negative)

[7] The case holding that the land grade decision is unfair due to the illegality of the officially assessed individual land price, which is the basis for its consideration

[1] According to Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 12-2 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices, it is possible for landowners and interested parties who have an objection to individual land prices to immediately file an administrative litigation after either a request for reinspection based on the guidelines for investigation or a request for administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, as well as to file an administrative litigation again after being notified of the result.

[2] In the case of paragraph (1) above, where a landowner, etc. becomes aware of a decision-making disposition, a request for reinspection may be made to the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu within 60 days from the date of notification pursuant to Article 12-2 (1) of the above Investigation Guidelines, and in other cases, within 180 days from the date of the disposition pursuant to Article 18 (3) of the Administrative Appeals Act

[3] The effect of a ruling on an administrative appeal as provided in Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act, binding on the administrative agency and other relevant administrative agencies, shall be limited to the recognition and judgment on the order of the ruling and its premise, and shall not extend to other dispositions which are not directly related thereto.

[4] The case holding that where a lawsuit claiming cancellation of individual land price is filed with the aim of re-audit and administrative appeal period, it is inappropriate not to go through the previous trial procedure

[5] The remarkable gap between the grade price and the individual land price does not need to arise during the preceding year, and it is legitimate only when the gap that had already occurred during the pertinent year was not reflected at the time of the revision of the grade or was reflected only in the whole or a part thereof in the pertinent year. However, even in this case, it is legitimate only when it is more balanced compared to the class of the neighboring land.

[6] Since the price of individual land can be more reasonable and objective than that of the reference land which is deemed to have basically similar utility value to the land in question, it is necessary to select the reference land which is the same as or similar to the characteristics of the land, such as the target land and specific use area, land use, etc. The provision on the selection method of the reference land is merely a guideline to regulate ordinary cases for administrative convenience within the scope of upper law, and it is not necessarily bound by the order of the number of the reference land selection method stipulated in the above comparative standard land selection method.

[7] The case holding that the land grade decision is unfair due to the illegality of the officially assessed individual land price, which is the basis for its consideration

[1] Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act, Article 111(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995 of Dec. 6, 1995), Article 80-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995), Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act / [2] Article 18(3) of the same Act, Article 12-2 of the same Act / [3] Article 37 of the Administrative Appeals Act / [4] Article 18(3) of the same Act / [5] Article 111(2) of the former Local Tax Act, Article 80-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 29, 195) / [6] Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act)

[1] [2] [4] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu13268 delivered on June 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2607) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu11514 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3536) / [5] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15568 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2222), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1084 delivered on February 28, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 96Ha, 960) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu3442 delivered on July 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2813) / [6] Supreme Court Decision 197Nu19875 delivered on July 17, 1997

Plaintiff

Sungnam City

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu10176 delivered on August 13, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act and Article 12-2 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (hereinafter “Investigation Guidelines”), land owners and interested persons who have an objection to individual land prices can immediately file an administrative litigation based on either a request for reinspection based on the investigation guidelines or a request for administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, and a request for reinspection can be filed again through an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act after being notified of the result. In such cases, a request for reinspection may be filed within 60 days from the date of becoming aware of the decision in accordance with Article 12-2(1) of the Investigation Guidelines, and in other cases, within 180 days from the date of the disposition in accordance with Article 18(3) of the Administrative Appeals Act unless there is a justifiable reason (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu13268, Jun. 29, 195; 94Nu13268, Sept. 26, 195; 94Nu1514, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of records and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff filed an application for re-assessment of the land price determination as of January 1, 1995 with the head of Sungnam-si (hereinafter referred to as the "head of the Gu") on the land price determination as of January 1, 1995 only after the lapse of 180 days from June 30, 1994, which was publicly announced by the individual land price determination (hereinafter referred to as the "land price determination") as of January 1, 1994, for re-assessment of the land price determination as of January 1, 1995 as well as for the re-assessment of the land price determination as of January 1, 195 as part of the re-assessment of the land price determination or the administrative appeal determination. The above re-determination application is unlawful by the re-inspection and the period for filing an administrative appeal, and the plaintiff was not aware of the land price determination as above, and thus, the plaintiff was justified in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, the land price determination in this case is an administrative act separate from the individual land price determination in the previous year, and it does not necessarily require the selection of a standard for comparison with the case of individual land price determination in 192 and 1993. Thus, unlike the purport of the ruling on the individual land price determination in the previous year as alleged by the plaintiff in the administrative appeal procedure as to the individual land price determination in the previous year, the defendant set the standard land as a comparative standard for the land ( Address 1 omitted) at the time of the determination of the land price in this case as the land price determination in the previous year on the ground that it was unlawful against the purport of the above ruling, or further, it is not possible to immediately institute an administrative litigation without going through the previous trial procedure.

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the head of the defendant.

According to Article 111(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995, Dec. 6, 1995; hereinafter the same) and Article 80-2(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878, Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter the same shall apply), the land grade shall be established in a way that a balance is balanced according to the current use of land or surrounding environment or other natural and social conditions by taking account of the officially announced land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act. In a case where the land whose grade is determined considerably changes the current use of land or surrounding environment, or other natural and social conditions, the land grade shall be determined based on the individual land price of the relevant land, and the land grade shall be determined based on the actual economic situation of tax administration and the tax burden of taxpayers, etc., and thus, the price classification and individual land price classification need not be reflected in the whole or part of the grade of the relevant land before the preceding year.

Meanwhile, according to Article 10(1) of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 7 of the survey guidelines, the price of individual land shall be determined by using the land price comparison table provided by the Minister of Construction and Transportation on the basis of the price comparison standard compared with the characteristics of one or more land which is deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question (hereinafter referred to as the “Comparison standard”) and the characteristics of the relevant individual land. According to the '94 Individual Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 1995), according to the comparison standard method of the comparison standard of the land price comparison method, the construction division selected from among the reference land within the same specific-use area as or similar to that of the land to be surveyed.

However, inasmuch as the individual land price can be calculated more reasonably and objectively than by selecting the reference land which is deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question, it is necessary to select the reference land which is the same as or similar to the characteristics of the land, such as the target land and specific use area, and the current use of the land. The provision on the method of selecting the reference land is merely a guideline for regulating ordinary cases for administrative convenience within the scope of superior statutes. In a case where there is a reasonable ground, it is not necessarily bound by the order of the number of the reference land selection criteria set forth in the above method of selecting the reference land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Nu3442, Jul. 11, 1996; 96Nu13057, Feb. 11, 1997).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, although the officially assessed land price of this case was reduced in 1994, the officially assessed land price of this case was 5,910,00 won higher than 3,440,000 won in the previous year, and in 1995, the officially assessed land price of this case was 5,90,000 won higher than 5,90,000 won in the previous 194, and it was 5,190,000 won in the previous 200,000 won in the previous 195, the officially assessed land price of this case was 92 and 93 years, or 95, and it was 5,000 won higher than that of the previous 20,000 won in the previous 20,000 won in the previous 30,000 won in the previous 9,000 won in the previous 20,000 won in the previous 205.

All the grounds of appeal are without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)