[1] Criteria for the selection of standard land for the appraisal of land

[2] Where the land subject to appraisal is a light area, forest conservation area, land category is a dry and dry answer at the time of the appraisal standard, and the construction of a factory is in progress, whether it is reasonable and appropriate to conduct an appraisal by taking into account the individual factors that the specific use area and land category were designated as the same standard land category and obtained permission for changing the form and quality (affirmative)

[1] According to Articles 9 and 22 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195) and Article 17 of the former Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by the Ordinance No. 460 of Mar. 24, 1994), the appraisal of land should be conducted by comprehensively considering the price rate, price increase rate, surrounding environment, etc. from the basic date to the time of the public announcement of the reference land located in the same or similar neighboring areas based on the officially announced land price of the reference land located in the same or similar areas. Thus, in selecting the reference land for the assessment of land, if there are the reference land with the same use, land category, surrounding environment, etc., it is reasonable to select the reference land as the reference land, but if not, it is reasonable to consider the same specific use area as the reference land, and even if there are some differences between the location, use, surrounding environment, etc. of the reference land.

[2] At the time of deemed donation of profits from the acquisition of unlisted stocks, the specific use area of the land subject to appraisal was land area and forest conservation area, and land category was Jeon and dry. Where the construction work is in progress, if the appraisal selects the same specific use area and land category of the land subject to appraisal according to the standards of appraisal under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act and the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and specifies the criteria and method for assessing the market price of the land subject to appraisal in consideration of the individual factors that

[1] Articles 9 and 22 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 5108 of Dec. 29, 195), Article 17 of the former Rules on Appraisal and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 460 of Mar. 24, 1994) / [2] Article 9(1) (see current Article 60(1)), (4) (see current Article 66 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act), Article 34-5 (see current Article 39 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act), Article 34-7 (see current Article 60 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act), Article 17 of the former Rules on Appraisal and Assessment of Lands, etc. Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1460 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 9(1) and (2) (see current Article 9(3) (4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act) of the Inheritance Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8722 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2905) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10616 delivered on March 12, 1993; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu834 delivered on November 12, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 104)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Ho-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office

Busan High Court Decision 97Gu10857 delivered on July 8, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

1. According to Articles 9 and 22 of the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 5108, Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter the same) and Article 17 of the former Rules on Appraisal and Assessment of Lands, etc. (amended by Act No. 460, Mar. 24, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), the appraisal of land shall be conducted by comprehensively considering the rate of land price, land category, surrounding environment, etc. from the basic date to the price, based on the officially announced land price of the reference land located in the same or similar neighboring areas. Thus, in selecting the reference land for the assessment of land, if there are the same reference land for use, land category, surrounding environment, etc. as that of neighboring areas, it is reasonable to select the reference land for the same use, land category, surrounding environment, etc., but in such cases, even if there are somewhat different parts from the location, use, surrounding environment, etc. of the reference land to be expropriated, such factors should be considered from the analysis of regional factors or individual factors (see, etc.

2. According to the records of this case, the specific use area of the land No. 1 in this case was a light area and forest conservation area at the time of the constructive donation of profits from the acquisition of the unlisted stocks in this case, and land category was Jeon and answer. The current status of the land was in the process of the construction of the construction of the factory. The appraisal report (No. 5-2) of the Pacific Industrial Corporation, which used the land in this case as the basis for the taxation of this case, is deemed to have selected the standard land with different specific use area by all the land No. 1 in this case as factory site. In addition, the appraisal report of the court below is not in compliance with the appraisal standards prescribed by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. of Lands, etc., and it is difficult to deem that the selected standard land is reasonable and appropriate. On the other hand, the appraisal report of the appraisal corporation at the same time did not comply with the appraisal standard prescribed by the former Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc., and after selecting the same standard land type and use area.

Therefore, the court below held that the appraisal value per share of the shares of this case is unlawful on the ground that no mortgage or pledge was created on the shares of this case itself, and that the appraisal value per share of the shares of this case is calculated based on the appraisal value assessed by the Pacific appraisal corporation at the time of establishing the right to collateral security on the land of this case under Article 9 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4662 of Dec. 31, 193). The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, since the court below determined the circumstances which form the basis for calculating the above appraisal value, which adopted the appraisal result of each appraisal value of the above appraisal value, and compared and judged the appraisal value per share based on the appraisal value of the above appraisal value of each of the above appraisal value, and it cannot be deemed that the appraisal value of this case is naturally excluded from the appraisal value without examining whether the appraisal value of this case constitutes the market value or that there is a reasonable ground for rejecting the statement of appraisal report.

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

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)