The case holding that the decision of correction of the officially assessed individual land price as of the date before subdivision does not extend to the remainder of the whole land before subdivision.

After the individual land price as of January 1, 1990 was determined and publicly announced as of Sep. 6, 1990, the land price as of Sep. 6, 1990, which was determined and publicly announced as of Sep. 1, 199, was divided into three parcels of land A, B, and C, and the competent authority conducted a reinvestigation on the land as of Jan. 1, 1990, and subsequently revised the individual land price as of Jan. 1, 1990, and did not conduct a reinvestigation on the whole parcel of land before division, it should be deemed that the individual land price as of Jan. 1, 1990 was adjusted as of Jan. 1, 199, and the 1990s individual land price as of the entire parcel of land before subdivision was also included in the purport of correction, and even if it is deemed that the part corresponding to the part corresponding to the part corresponding to the land A among the land before subdivision was adjacent to the part corresponding to the land.

Articles 2, 4, and 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Ulsan District Office

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu470 delivered on October 13, 1993

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff’s failure shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court.

1. The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) acquired and owned 2,621 square meters prior to the subdivision on October 1, 1951, Nam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 1 omitted); (b) on September 6, 1990, the land prior to the subdivision was 1,706 square meters prior to the same lot number; (c) 495 square meters prior to the subdivision (number 2 omitted); and (d) transferred the land of this case to the Nonparty on November 27, 1991; and (d) on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have any effect on the land of this case on the land of this case, which was divided into 1,621 square meters prior to the subdivision on the land of this case; and (e) on the land of this case, the Plaintiff did not have any effect on the land of this case on the land of this case, which was divided into 90 square meters prior to the subdivision on May 30, 1991; and (e) calculated the tax amount of this case on the land of this case, 294.7.

2. However, according to the facts established by the court below, the above 1,706 square meters for the land prior to the subdivision of this case (2,621 square meters prior to the subdivision of this case) was divided into 3 lots, such as 1,706 square meters prior to the subdivision of this case (1 omitted), 420 square meters prior to the above 0-dong (492 square meters prior to the subdivision of this case), and the above 9-dong 10-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 90-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 9-dong 90-dong 9-dong 9-dong 10-dong 9-dong 9-dong 90-dong 190-dong 9-dong 100-dong 9-dong 100-dong 90-dong 1991.

3. In addition, even if it is deemed that the above decision of correction was made in 190 by correcting the officially assessed land price for the part corresponding to ○○dong (number 1 omitted) after the above partition among the land before the partition of this case, the part corresponding to ○○dong (number 1 omitted) and the part corresponding to the land of this case among the land before the partition of this case was adjacent to the part falling under the above ○○dong (number 1 omitted), but there had already been different characteristics of land, such as the area, shape, and road surface at the time of January 1, 1990, and the officially assessed land price in 1991 was determined as KRW 576,00 per square meter for the land of this case after the above partition, compared to the fact that the above decision of correction was determined as KRW 330,000 per square meter for the land of this case. In light of the above, it is difficult to view the validity of the above decision of correction as it is as it is on the land of this case.

4. If the above circumstances are the same, the officially assessed individual land price for the year 190 for the land of this case still is 340,000 won per square meter for the land before the division of this case, which is the officially assessed individual land price for the year 1990 for the land of this case, but the court below, as above, made the above decision of correction as to the land of this case before the division of this case or the part corresponding to the land of 0,000 after the division of this case, and made the above decision of correction as to the land of this case, the effect of the 1990 officially assessed land price for the land of this case was corrected from 340,000 to 576,000 won for the land of this case, and it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the decision of correction of the officially assessed individual land price for the year 190 for the land of this case. Thus, the court below's rejection of the above assertion is justified.

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)