The meaning of "standard market price of taxation" under paragraph (3) of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act ( May 1, 1990) (the land grade price per square meter) of the Gu.

According to Article 111 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995 of Dec. 6, 1995), Article 80 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995), since Article 80 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1990) provides that the standard market price of the land shall be the price of the land determined by Article 80-2 as of the date determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as of September 1, 1990, which is defined in the formula for calculating the standard market price of the land acquired before or after the acquisition of the land, the standard market price of the land shall be determined differently by the standard market price of the land before and after the acquisition of the land at the time of a replotting disposition, and it shall be determined as the standard market price of the land at the time of the transfer.

Article 96 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5031 of Dec. 29, 1995); Article 166 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14860 of Dec. 30, 1995); Article 16 (1) 1 (see current Article 77 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995); Article 77 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 562 of Mar. 30, 1996); Article 11 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1495 of Dec. 6, 1995); Article 18 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1488 of Apr. 28, 1998)

1. The term “public interest” means the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and the public interest and

The Director of the Pacific District Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 55,589,920 against the Plaintiff on December 16, 1996 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are acknowledged in light of Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 4-1 through 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, 3-3, and Eul evidence 3-1 through 3.

A. On November 16, 1967, the Plaintiff acquired and owned 3 5 mal 5 malle of 9 forest land in Songpa-gu, Seoul (5,256m2) in Songpa-gu, Seoul, on August 8, 1983, the said land was incorporated into a zone for the implementation of the land substitution and rearrangement project and announced the land substitution on March 13, 1989, and at the same time the land substitution and rearrangement project was completed on March 13, 1989, the Plaintiff received 43,176,200 won of the liquidation money for the part of 90.6m2 of the land under the land substitution from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, as shown in the attached land substitution disposition table, and thereafter transferred 1,177.5m2 of the land in each of the above land to 18 et al. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the land in this case”).

B. On January 31, 1996, the Plaintiff made a profit from the transfer of the land in this case to the Defendant, and the transfer value shall be KRW 1,737,538,00, and necessary expenses shall be KRW 212,967,00. The acquisition value shall be the amount calculated by multiplying the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the land acquired before September 1, 1990 by the amount indicated in the separate sheet 1. The separate sheet 1.0,000, which is the area of 9 forest land area in Songpa-gu, Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, before the land substitution corresponding to the area of the land in this case; the acquisition value shall be calculated by multiplying the amount of the previous land by the amount calculated by the formula of the "standard market price at the time of acquisition ± the standard market price at the time of acquisition ± the acquisition ± the acquisition value of the land at the time of 1.68,000, the remaining amount shall be calculated by the average market price at the time of 1.6.7,5.84, respectively, the acquisition value shall be calculated by the same amount in the same formula.

C. After that, the defendant should calculate the acquisition value by applying Article 16 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Prime Minister No. 505 of May 3, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act") which provides that the former landowner shall calculate the acquisition value of the previous land in the formula of "the area of the previous land x the unit market price at the time of acquisition x the unit market price at the time of acquisition." In this case, the "standard market price" in Article 3 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Standard Market Price at the time of acquisition refers to the unit price of land at each time. Accordingly, the unit market price at the time of acquisition of the land of this case is determined by the formula of the standard market price calculation formula in attached Table 2. The new standard market price per unit at the time of acquisition is determined to be 20,025,786 won, the remaining amount of capital gains tax to the plaintiff, 19686, 1967, 9696

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As the cause of the claim in this case, the "standard market price of taxation" under Paragraph 3 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree does not merely mean the price per unit, but rather means the amount obtained by multiplying the area of land by the price per unit of land by the price per unit of land. In the case of the land in this case, the standard market price at the time of acquisition of the land in this case, which was acquired before September 1, 1990, should be calculated by applying the tax base amount calculated by multiplying the area of land corresponding to each time by the price of land corresponding to each time by the price of land in accordance with Paragraph 3 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, although the defendant calculated the standard market price at the time of acquisition by the price per unit of land in violation of the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and imposed the capital gains tax accordingly, asserting that the disposition

(b) Markets:

Therefore, Article 11 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995 of Dec. 6, 1995) applied at the time of enforcement of the above provision provides that the standard market price of the land shall be the price of the land determined under Article 80-2 as of the date determined by the Ordinance once a year, because the above provision provides the method of calculating the standard market price of the land acquired before or after September 1, 1990, the term "standard market price of the land" shall be used instead of "land price". However, since Article 111 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4995 of Dec. 6, 1995), the above provision provides that the transfer price of the land shall be the price of the land acquired at the time of issuance of the land at the time of a replotting disposition, which shall be determined by the standard market price of the land price at the time of issuance of the land at the time of a change in the area of the land before or after the public announcement of the officially announced standard market price.

[However, as acknowledged above, since the plaintiff received the liquidation money for replotting for the small substitute area under the time when the above replotting is confirmed, the defendant shall not be subject to Article 77 (1) 1 (b) of the above Enforcement Rule, but shall be subject to Article 77 (2) 2 (b) of the above Enforcement Rule, which provides for the method of calculating the acquisition value in the case where the previous landowner receives the liquidation money for replotting, and shall be subject to an error in calculating the tax amount within such limit. However, the amount of acquisition value to be calculated under subparagraph 2 (b) of the above paragraph (2) 2 (b) of the above Table 3 of the acquisition value shall be 20,025,78 won as stated in the acquisition value column under subparagraph 3 of the above Table 3 of the above Table, and in this case, it is obvious that the transfer income amount and transfer income amount will increase rather, so the error in the above application of the above Act and subordinate statutes shall not be subject to a ground for revocation as to the disposition in this case within the legitimate scope of tax amount.]

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful, and the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted).

Judge Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge) Ad hoc