Where the base point of validity of the officially assessed individual land price and the officially assessed individual land price are corrected, the effect thereof.

In light of Articles 2, 4, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the guidelines for the joint investigation of individual land prices, which are the Prime Minister’s directives, the officially assessed individual land prices shall be assessed on the basis of the officially assessed standard land prices, and the officially assessed individual land prices shall be assessed on the basis of the officially assessed standard land prices, and the officially assessed individual land prices shall be effective on the basis of the basic date. As long as the officially assessed individual land prices were determined and publicly announced on the basis of an obvious error in land assessment, such as error in land characteristics, and a new officially assessed individual land price, which serves as the basis for the assessment

Articles 2, 4, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu2746 delivered on July 14, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that, on May 23, 1991, the Plaintiff’s gift tax calculated on the basis of the donation amounting to KRW 2,200,000 per m2,00 per m2,00 per m2,00,000, was publicly announced on November 18, 1991 at the time of the donation, the publicly announced individual land price as of January 1, 1990 was 2,20,000 per m2,00 per m2,00, on the ground that the head of Daegu Special Metropolitan City, which was the donation, was obviously erroneous in the calculation of the land price of this case on September 13, 191, on the ground that the above publicly announced individual land price was 3,90,000,0000,000 per m2,000 per m3,90,0000 per m3,000,000.

In light of Articles 2, 4, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 5 of the same Act and the guidelines for the joint investigation of land prices, which are the Prime Minister’s directives, the officially assessed individual land prices shall be assessed on the basis of the officially assessed standard land prices, and the officially assessed individual land prices are assessed on the basis of the officially assessed standard land prices, and the officially assessed individual land prices or the officially assessed individual land prices shall be deemed to be effective on the basis of the basic date. As long as the officially assessed individual land prices were determined and publicly announced on the basis of a determination of land prices, such as errors in land characteristics investigation, are invalid, and the previously announced individual land prices

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the valuation of donated property, such as a theory of lawsuit, or the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, or in the misapprehension of the reasoning or reasoning.

Other arguments are not legitimate grounds of appeal due to a new argument in the trial that was not asserted by the plaintiff in the original trial.

All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)