(a) Whether the determination of individual land price is lawful not based on the land price comparison table;

(b) Whether the application for deliberation on adjustment of urban design is included in the “application for construction permission” under the proviso of Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Land Excess Profit Tax Act.

A. In full view of the purport of Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and Articles 7 and 8 of the same Act of the same Investigation Guidelines (the Prime Minister Directive No. 241 of Apr. 14, 1990 and the Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of Apr. 2, 1991), the determination of the individual land price shall be based on the standard comparison table (the land price ratification table) on the basis of the officially announced land price of reference land which has similar usefulness to the land in question, to investigate the characteristics of the two land, to determine the adjustment rate by comparing each other, and then to calculate the land price by multiplying the price of reference land by the price of reference land. Thus, the determination of the individual land price shall be based on the above method unless there are special circumstances, and the determination of the individual land price by other method is not in compliance with the related Acts and subordinate statutes,

B. In light of the contents and legislative intent of Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192), an application for deliberation on adjustment of the urban design which has to undergo prior procedures in applying for building permission in the land within the urban design zone pursuant to the provisions of Article 8-2, Articles 33 and 44-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4381 of May 31, 1991), Articles 13, 13-2 and 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192) shall be included in the act of applying for construction permission under the proviso of Article 23 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act.

(a) Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 7 and Article 8 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices. Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act, Article 23 subparag. 3(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Acquisition of Land Excess Gains Tax; Article 8-2, Articles 33 and 44-2 of the former Building Act, Articles 13, 13-2 and 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Nu16706 delivered on June 11, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2036) 93Nu9378 delivered on November 12, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 107) 93Nu10989 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 837) B. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu7983 delivered on February 8, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1027)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of Gangnam-gu et al. and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu10298, 30988 decided July 14, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

(1) The appeal filed by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the determination of individual land price is deemed reasonable.

In full view of the purport of Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and Articles 7 and 8 of the same investigation guidelines (the Prime Minister Directive No. 241 of Apr. 14, 1990 and the Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of Apr. 2, 1991), the determination of individual land price shall be based on the standard comparison table (hereinafter referred to as “land price ratification table”) on the basis of the officially announced value of reference land, which has similar usefulness to the land in question, used the reference land and the standard comparison table on the factors for the formation of land price, provided by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, to examine the characteristics of the two land and determine the price adjustment rate by comparing them with each other and then by multiplying the price of reference land by the price of reference land, barring special circumstances, the determination of individual land price shall be based on the above method. The determination of individual land price by other method is not in accordance

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government selected the land as the reference land in determining the individual land price of Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) owned by the plaintiff as of January 1, 1991, and did not determine the characteristics of the land and the adjustment rate of the price in accordance with the offered land price comparison table, but calculated by multiplying the increase rate of the officially announced land price of January 1, 1991 in comparison with the officially announced land price of January 1, 1990 by the individual land price of this case in comparison with the officially announced land price of January 1, 1990, and determined the individual land price of this case as above. The determination of the individual land price by the above method is not permitted in principle unless the land which is the same as the reference land price of the previous year is selected as the reference land price, and there is no change in the utilization condition of the reference land and the land price of this case as of January 1, 1991.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the chief of the Defendant Samsung Tax Office on the detailed and disposition of land excess gains.

On the first ground for appeal

Since the determination of individual land price by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the above ( Address 1 omitted) land owned by the plaintiff is unlawful as seen earlier, the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that it is lawful is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

(A) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Plaintiff obtained 10 stories above ground on the building site of Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 3 omitted), 200 square meters above ground, 4,56.92 meters above ground, and 19-2 residential facilities attached thereto, and completed the construction plan deliberation by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 4, 1990, and rejected an application for the construction permit review by the head of the building permit under the proviso of Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act within 196. The Plaintiff applied for the construction permit review by the head of the building permit under the proviso of Article 29 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act within 196. The Plaintiff did not request the Mayor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on December 7, 190 to review the construction permit under the proviso of Article 29 of the Building Act for the reason that the above construction permit review period has not been completed by 3 years after the expiration of the construction permit review period. Meanwhile, the Minister of Construction and Transportation, on June 1319, 19, 1998.

(B) Article 8(3) of the Act provides that land falling under idle land, etc. after the acquisition of land shall not be deemed idle land, etc. for a period prescribed by the Presidential Decree, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Article. Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree, which sets the inevitable reason and period not deemed idle land, etc. under the provisions of paragraph (3) of the same Article, shall not be deemed idle land for one year from the date of acquisition if land is acquired for the purpose of constructing a new building under subparagraph 3: Provided, That authorization related to the relevant project shall not be deemed idle land for one year from the date of acquisition. Permission shall be granted by the person who has obtained a license, etc. or applied for a construction permit, or land whose construction permit is restricted by administrative guidance for the adjustment of the supply and demand of construction materials, but the application for construction permit shall not be deemed idle land for a limited period of one year from the date of acquisition, and it shall not be deemed that there is an error of law in the Enforcement Decree of Article 23-13 of the former Building Act and Article 45-13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

(3) Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)