2020Guhap70830 Decided the officially assessed individual land price

*

The head of Seocho-gu

May 27, 2021

July 22, 2021

1. The Defendant’s decision on January 1, 2020 as to May 29, 2020, Seoul Seocho-gu*, the officially assessed individual land price is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Seocho-gu Seoul* (hereinafter “instant land”) owns the Plaintiff’s shares 330.67/3,058 shares, * 2,727.3/6,116 shares, respectively.

B. Of the instant land, the Plaintiff used a size equivalent to his/her co-ownership (330.67 square meters) and owns one unit of housing with a building area of 94.98 square meters on that ground, and * and *, using an area equivalent to his/her co-ownership (2,727.33 square meters) on that ground, used a stable with a building area of 146.8 square meters on that ground and used the remainder as a whole.

C. Details of changes in the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land are as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

D. When investigating and calculating land characteristics, the Defendant classified the land use of this case into residential (residential) and calculated the land price of this case as 2,538,000 won/m square meters (from Seocho-gu Seoul * in 2019 to 2020) based on the officially announced land price of comparative standard land for residential (from Seocho-gu in Seoul * in 2019 to the same * in 2020).

E.* The Defendant filed a civil petition with the following facts: “The instant land-based housing is owned by the Plaintiff and its considerable share is being used as “pre-use”; thus, deeming the entire instant land as a residential area and determining the officially assessed individual land price is unreasonable:

F. On April 2020, the Defendant demanded verification of the land price of this case by reflecting that the land of this case was used for more than two purposes in the appraiser of this case (hereinafter “the appraiser of this case”) around April 2020, and the appraiser of this case calculated the land price of this case with the 1,447,000/metres by adjusting the land price of this case to the number work.

G. On May 29, 2020, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2020, as of May 1, 2020, as the land price of this case, after gathering opinions from landowners, etc. and deliberation by the Seocho-gu Committee for Public Notice of Values of Real Estate (hereinafter “instant officially assessed land price”) (hereinafter “the following decision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 14, and 15 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the decision of this case is legitimate

According to the following facts and circumstances, the aforementioned facts and evidence and evidence, Eul evidence, Eul evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 10 (including additional numbers) revealed that the land of this case was used for two or more purposes from around 2015, and considering the circumstances that were verified by appraisal business entities pursuant to the former Act on the Public Announcement of Real Estate Values (amended by Act No. 17219, Apr. 7, 2020; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), even if there was no change in the characteristics of the land of this case, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was a change in the characteristics of the land of this case, and it is difficult to view that there was objective and rational reflection of factors to be considered in the process of determining the officially announced land price of this case in consideration of the circumstances where the land price of this case under the Land Price Declaration fails to present specific grounds for calculating the number of work, and thus, it is difficult to conclude the decision of this case lawful.

A. Under Article 10(4) and (8) of the Act and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Defendant shall calculate the officially assessed individual land price in order to maintain a balance between the price of the land to be calculated and the officially assessed individual land price of the standard land by using the land price ratification table of the standard land which is deemed to have similar usefulness to the land subject to the assessment of the officially assessed individual land price (Article 10(4) of the Act). Pursuant to Article 10(4) and (8) of the Act and Article 17(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the guidelines for the investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price of 2020 determined by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport around October 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant guidelines”), the Defendant shall extract the price distribution rate by land characteristics

B. * On April 29, 2015, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s housing and shares, the Defendant submitted an opinion to the Defendant on the adjustment of the officially assessed individual land price on the ground that the pertinent land, regardless of the Plaintiff’s housing and shares, was in use as the answer. The Defendant adjusted the land price of this case calculated by using the land price ratification table after verification by the appraiser, and determined the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2015 as KRW 857,000/m2, which is approximately 78.05% of the said land price. On January 1, 2016, the Defendant adjusted the land price of this case as of January 1, 2015, using the land price comparison table to KRW 927,200/m200 higher than the increase rate of standard land price compared to the previous year.

The Plaintiff and*, * is currently using the instant land for other purposes by dividing it into the area corresponding to their respective co-ownership shares. According to the instant guidelines, the Defendant is required to accurately investigate the land characteristics through various public books and on-site inspections, if necessary, and there is no data to deem that the characteristics of the instant land have been investigated differently from the relocation.

C. The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, a supervisory agency for the affairs of the officially assessed individual land price, recommends that the land price should not be calculated by adjusting the land price. The officially assessed individual land price in 2017, 2018, and 2019 was not adjusted by reflecting the opinions of co-owners as in 2015 and 2016. The Defendant demanded the appraiser of this case to adjust the land price on the ground that the land price in this case is being used for two or more purposes, reflecting the opinions of co-owners in relation to the calculation of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2020. The appraiser of this case adjusted the land price in this case to calculate the verified land price with approximately KRW 54.6% of the calculated land price, and calculated the verified land price with approximately KRW 54.6% of the calculated land price.

According to Article 10(5) of the Act and Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s guidelines for the verification of individual land price under Article 10(5) of the Act and the guidelines for the verification of individual land price under Article 18 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 1230, Oct. 23, 2019), an appraisal business entity shall faithfully review and verify matters concerning the balance between the officially assessed land price and the previous year’s land price when verifying the land price (Article 11(1)). Upon request, an appraisal business entity shall attend the Public Notice of Real Estate Price Disclosure Committee and explain the result of verification of the calculated land price (Article 13(1)). The appraiser of the instant case did not present a reply that “the computation price was voluntarily adjusted according to specialized knowledge and reasonable judgment,” and did not explain how 54.6% of the calculated land price was derived. In addition, there was no explanation as to why the assessed price was applied 1,098,000,08.5%.

D. In the process of calculating the instant land price, the Defendant replaced the standard land with another land in 2019, but there is no difference between the current use status of the comparative standard land in 2019 and the officially announced land price (2,650,000/m2) in the year 2019 and 2020. Considering that the instant land price is the same amount as the publicly announced land price on January 1, 2019, it is difficult to deem that the instant officially announced land price was determined differently from the instant assessed land price as a result of the replacement of the comparative standard land price.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.