Plaintiff (Law Firm Il, Attorney Kim Byung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Yeongdeungpo-si Office

September 1, 2008

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Guhap2143 Decided April 30, 2008

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On July 28, 2006, the disposition that the Defendant decided the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2006 to KRW 2,380,000 per square meter on July 1, 2006 on 0,000,000 per square meter.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 2006, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2006 as KRW 2,780,000 per square meter on the land with respect to 5,729 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time of the joint ownership by the Plaintiff, etc. on May 31, 2006.

B. On June 19, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the Defendant, pursuant to Article 12 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 8409, Apr. 27, 2007; hereinafter “the Act”), against which the individual land price of the instant land is adjusted to KRW 1,126,850 per square meter, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition by correcting the current status of the instant land for commercial use from the commercial use to KRW 2,380,000 per square meter.

C. After being notified of the result of the above objection on August 10, 2006, on September 27, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal against the purport that the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land should be modified to KRW 1,790,316 per square meter. However, on January 4, 2007, the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do rendered an adjudication that the Plaintiff’s administrative appeal claim is illegal and thus dismissed, and served a written adjudication on January 8, 2007 with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 5, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1, 6, 7, 17 through 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense is that the procedure for raising an objection under Article 12 (1) of the Act constitutes "cases where there are special provisions in other Acts" under Article 3 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Act, and therefore, an administrative appeal cannot be filed against the decision of the officially assessed individual land price, and an administrative litigation shall be filed immediately after the filing of an objection under the Act. The plaintiff, after being notified of the result of the above objection, filed an administrative appeal without immediately filing an administrative litigation but after being notified of the result of the above decision, filed the lawsuit in this case more than 90 days after being notified of the result of the above objection, which eventually should be dismissed.

B. Article 12 of the Act provides that a person who has an objection against the officially assessed individual land price may file an objection with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu (hereinafter “Mayor, etc.”) in writing within 30 days from the date of determination and publication of the publicly assessed individual land price, and the head of a Si, etc. shall examine the objection within 30 days from the date of expiration of the period for filing the objection and notify the applicant of the result in writing, but if the contents of the objection are deemed reasonable, it shall

① Article 3(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act provides that “An administrative appeal may be filed under this Act except as otherwise provided for in other Acts with respect to the disposition or omission of an administrative agency.” In light of the purport or purpose of establishing the administrative appeal system, the contents or purport of the above provision, etc., “where there are special provisions in other Acts” means cases where there are explicit provisions that other Acts are unable to file an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, or where at least a special administrative appeal procedure is made to be immediately filed after going through the special administrative appeal procedure (it can be said that Articles 55 and 56 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 140 of the Local Autonomy Act are the same as in this case). It is reasonable to interpret that there is no provision on whether an objection is filed under other Acts and subordinate statutes, which does not constitute “where there is any special provision in other Acts,” and that it is more likely that a landowner or an interested person may institute an administrative appeal based on other Acts and subordinate statutes than the period for filing an administrative appeal under the Administrative Appeals Act, which is more unreasonable than the period for filing an objection and the administrative appeal procedure.

In this case, the plaintiff filed an objection against the original individual land price determination disposition as to the land of this case on August 10, 2006, notified of the result of the objection (the disposition of this case) and filed an administrative appeal on September 27, 2006, which was within 90 days thereafter, and on January 8, 2007, filed the lawsuit of this case on March 5, 2007, which was within 90 days thereafter, after being served with the written adjudication on the administrative appeal on January 8, 2007, as seen above, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case was lawfully filed during the period of filing the lawsuit. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Defendant calculated the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land too much high due to the selection of comparative standards with considerable differences in all the factors in the land, location, shape, utilization status, surrounding environment, and other factors in price formation, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) When the mayor, etc. determines and publicly announces the officially assessed individual land price, the land price shall be calculated by using the land price ratification table on the basis of the officially assessed land price of one or more reference land prices deemed to have similar usefulness to the land in question, and other necessary matters concerning the calculation, etc. of the officially assessed individual land price shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree (Article 12(7) of the Act). Article 16(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall determine and notify the guidelines for the investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price as provided in Article 11(3) and (7) of the Act, and the head of the Si, etc. shall determine and calculate the officially assessed individual land price in accordance with the guidelines. The Minister of Construction and Transportation notifies the defendant, etc. of the standard land price in accordance with Article 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act that "where the land subject to investigation is the same as the land price in question, the standard land price shall not be excluded from the computation of the officially assessed individual land price in accordance with the standard land price standards.

(2) In full view of the purport of the pleadings as a result of the Nonparty’s appraisal of the first instance court’s appraiser Nos. 1 to 14, 11, 22, and 23 square meters, the instant land is located within the area prior to death as a general commercial area, and its neighboring area is a commercial zone formed with an apartment complex, commercial building, school, etc., with a width of about 10 meters, and the instant land was designated as an urban planning facility (parking), and accordingly, the instant land has been constructed as a 10th floor above the instant land and 9th floor above the instant land and completed construction on July 206, 200, and thereafter, the land price of the instant land was calculated as a 20th square meters above that of the instant 20th square meters above that of the instant land, and thereafter, as a 20th square meters above that of the instant land, the Defendant selected and publicly notified a standard 20th square meters of the instant land price as a 20th square meters of the instant land.

(3) According to the above facts, in determining the comparison standard of the officially assessed individual land price of this case which is a public site in 2006, the defendant should select it from among the standard land prices representing the situation of the main land use in the neighboring area and the standard land price level according to the standard land price selection standard of comparison standard of the public land in the calculation guidelines. However, in violation of this, it is reasonable to view that the defendant erred in selecting the standard land price of this case which is the highest among the standard land prices in the neighboring area, which cannot represent the land price level in the neighboring area. Thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful without any need to further examine the plaintiff's assertion (as seen earlier, it is not necessary to select the standard land price of this case).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the lawsuit of this case is unfair in conclusion, and thus it is revoked by accepting the plaintiff's appeal, but this case has been tried to the extent that it can be judged on the merits of this case, so it is decided as per Disposition by a party member under Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yu Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)