Where the leased portion is part of the real estate and is different from other parts, the method of calculating the leased real estate value under Article 43-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

In calculating the value of leased real estate under Articles 43-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195, Dec. 31, 1990); if the leased real estate is a part of the real estate, the total value of the leased real estate shall be calculated in accordance with Article 18(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1911, Feb. 27, 1993). Since there are no special provisions regarding the method of calculation, the total value of the leased real estate shall be calculated in a reasonable and objective manner. Thus, in calculating the value of the leased real estate, it shall be reasonable in accordance with the general evidence law that the appraisal method can be based on the appraisal result of the reliable appraisal method, and it shall not be deemed that it is different from the retroactive appraisal method, and if the appraisal method differs from the value of the entire real estate, it shall be considered that the land value of the real estate belongs to the region and the land value of each target real estate.

Article 18-3(1)3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 4282, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 43-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 133195, Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 18(3)11 and 18(5) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 1844, Feb. 28, 1991); Article 22 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.; Article 15(2) of the Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Mutual Savings and Finance Companies, Inc.

Head of Cheongju Tax Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 93Gu669 delivered on April 8, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

In calculating the value of leased real estate under Article 43-2 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 190), if the leased real estate is part of the real estate, the total value of the leased real estate shall be calculated pursuant to Article 18 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1911 of Feb. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply). Since there are no special provisions on the method of calculation, the total value of the leased real estate shall be distributed in a reasonable, objective and objective manner, and in calculating the value of the leased real estate, it shall be reasonable in light of the general evidence law that it may be based on the result of appraisal by an appraisal agency with credibility method, and it shall not be deemed that it is different by retroactive appraisal as long as it is a reasonable and objective method of distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu4761984, Sep. 28, 28, 19990).

Meanwhile, Article 22 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act provides that, in order to guarantee the fairness and rationality of appraisal of land, matters to be observed by a certified public appraiser shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation. The rules on appraisal and assessment provide for matters to be observed by an appraisal business operator in appraisal and assessment (Article 1). Article 17(1) provides for appraisal and assessment of land, and comprehensively takes into account the increase rate of land price fluctuations and wholesale prices from the basic date to the date of price based on the officially announced value of reference land located in the same or adjacent area, such as land category and use environment, etc., and other matters. In this case, the necessary adjustment, such as analysis of the local conditions and individual requirements of the land subject to appraisal and the standard land subject to appraisal, shall be made under Article 18, but the land price of each land subject to appraisal and appraisal may be determined by the comparison method or profit exchange method, and the land price of each land subject to appraisal shall be determined by distinguishing the land subject to appraisal from the land price of each land subject to appraisal and the land subject to appraisal (hereinafter referred to appraisal).

However, according to the records, in calculating the price of the leased portion as of June 30, 198 and June 30, 1990, which was the end of the first and second business years of the case on December 13, 1993, when the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court below, the new appraisal corporation Chungcheong branch office of this case is reasonable to allocate the appraisal value of the leased portion (the second and fourth and fifth floors) of this case to the extent that it is reasonable to allocate the appraisal value of the land of this case to the extent that it is reasonable to allocate the appraisal value of the entire building of this case to the extent that it is reasonable to allocate the appraisal value of the land of this case to the extent that it is reasonable to allocate the appraisal value of the entire building of this case to the extent that the land of this case is to allocate the appraisal value of the entire building of this case to the extent that the land of this case and the new appraisal value of the building of this case are different according to the facts determined by the court below and the records.

Therefore, the court below's determination of the whole value of the land and buildings in this case pursuant to Article 18 (5) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, and it is just to calculate the value of the leased part in this case by taking an appraisal result from the new appraisal corporation's Chungcheong branch and allocating the whole value of the land and buildings in accordance with the distribution ratio, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating real estate value or in the violation of the rules of evidence. All arguments

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)