If there is a land price increase, the propriety of the taxation disposition on land excess profit tax

Since the land price increase in the pertinent taxable period is the amount calculated by deducting the land price on the starting date of the pertinent taxable period from the land price on the starting date of the following taxable period, the Defendant’s application of the officially announced land price on January 1, 1991 instead of applying the officially announced land price on December 31, 190, which is the end date of the scheduled taxable period, in calculating the tax base amount of

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

원고들이 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의 ㅇ 대 409.7평방미터를 1978. 6. 27.에 취득하여 1990. 12. 31. 현재 나지인 채로 공유하고 있는 데 대하여 피고가 위 토지를 토지초과이득세법 제8조(개인소유 토지 중 유휴토지 등의 범위)제1항제14호 의 규정에 의한 유휴토지(나지)로 판정하고 개별필지의 기준시가에 의하여 위 토지의 가액을 평가하여 1991. 11. 16. 자로 원고들에게 1990. 1. 1.부터 같은 해 12. 31.까지의 토지초과이득세 예정결정기간에 대한 각 토지초과이득세 금20,350,820원씩의 부과처분을 한 사실을 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없는 바이다.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are allowed to construct the above 4th and lower floors and to adjust the height of the above 3th and lower floors through the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act which are linked to the above 35th and lower-rises (the above 1st and lower-rises can be constructed, after deliberation by the Construction Committee). Since the above 3th and lower-rises of the above 10th and lower-rises of the above 62th and lower-classs of the above 3th and lower-classs of the above 4th and lower-classs of the above 3th and lower-classs of the above 4th and lower-classs of the above 4th and lower-classs of the above 3th and lower-classs of the above 4th and lower-classs of the above 4th and lower-classs of the above 13th and lower-classs of the construction permission, the above 1st and lower-classs of the construction permission were no more than 3th and lower-classs of the construction permission.

However, a grass, as alleged above by the plaintiff in regard to subparagraph 1 or 3 of Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, is difficult to accept on the face of the provisions of each subparagraph. Thus, even if the plaintiff prepared to construct a building on the above land as alleged by the plaintiff, and it is impossible to construct a building on the above land due to measures such as restrictions on building permits and measures for the extension and expansion of building supply and demand for the construction volume control of the construction department, such administrative measures cannot be deemed to fall under the laws and regulations stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 23 of the above Enforcement Decree, and the above circumstances of the plaintiff with respect to the above land cannot be deemed to fall under the laws and regulations stipulated in subparagraph 3 of

Next, in calculating the tax base of this case, the Plaintiff calculated the land excess profit tax by applying the officially announced value of January 1, 1991, which is the end of the scheduled tax period, as of December 31, 1990, and calculated the land excess profit tax by applying the officially announced value of January 1, 1991. Thus, it is alleged that the detailed land excess profit tax and disposition are unlawful. However, according to Article 11 (1) of the Land Excess profit Tax Act, the tax base of land excess profit tax is the amount calculated by deducting the improvement cost and capital expenditure as prescribed by the Presidential Decree on the increase in land prices and idle land in the pertinent tax period from the land price as of the end of the taxable period after deducting the land price as of the commencement date of the pertinent tax period from the land price at the end of the taxable period at the end of the pertinent tax period at 10.10.10.3 billion won of the land price at the end of the pertinent tax period at the end of 19.10 billion won of the land price at the end of the pertinent tax period (in this case at the end of 19.10.10.3 billion won of the land price

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the detailed and disposition of the above land excess profit by the defendant is unlawful is unfair, and it is dismissed as per Disposition.