Whether land excess profit tax is the land excess profit tax

It is illegal to impose the soil tax on the remaining land without the land price increase because the increase in the price of the entire land exceeds the normal increase in land price.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The imposition of KRW 41,634,060 against the Plaintiff on November 16, 1993 by the Defendant shall be revoked. 2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Details of taxation; and

원고가 1985. 2. 18.경 경남 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 산 13 임야 49,091㎡(뒤에 같은 번지 임야 4,057㎡와 같은 번지의 1 임야 45,034㎡로 분할 되었다. 이하 이 사건 토지라 한다)를 취득하여 그 명의의 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실, 건설부장관이 택지개발촉진법에 근거하여 1989. 10. 27. 이 사건 토지 중 하단부 4,231㎡(대체로 뒤에 분할된 같은 리 산 13 임야 4,057㎡에 해당한다)를 택지개발예정지구로 고시한 사실, 피고가 토지초과이득세법에 의하여 이 사건 토지 중 위 택지예정지구로 고시된 부분(이하 이 사건 예정지라고 한다)을 제외한 나머지 44,860㎡(대체로 뒤에 분할된 같은 리 산 13의 1 임야 45,034㎡에 해당한다, 이하 이 사건 잔여지라고 한다)에 대하여 과세기간 종료일(1992. 12. 31.) 현재 원고 개인이 소유하는 유휴토지로 보아 1993. 11. 16. 과세표준액을 표준지인 이 사건 토지의 공시지가에 의거하여 금 83,899,137원으로 산출하여 과세기간 1990. 1. 1.부터 1992. 12. 31.사이의 토지초과이득세 금 41,634,060원을 부과, 고지한 사실 등은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. Whether the taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserted that the taxation of this case was unlawful since the land price increase calculated and its tax base is contrary to the principle of substantial taxation since it was against the principle of substantial taxation, even when the Minister of Construction and Transportation determined each officially announced land price in the year 190 and the year 1993, when the land price of this case was based on the appraisal that became the basis for the determination of each officially announced land price in the year 1990 and the year 1993, although the land of this case was one parcel on the public land register during the above imposition period, but it was actually divided into the land of this case and the remaining land of this case, due to the public notice of the said planned land for housing site development, and the characteristics of the above two land were clearly changed.

B. Determination

(1) According to Articles 8(4) and 11(1) of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by the Constitutional Court as to the amendment of the relevant provisions in accordance with the purport of the Constitutional Court’s decision on violation of the Constitution or inconsistency with the Constitution, the amended provisions apply. However, Articles 8(4), 11(1), and 33 of the former Enforcement Decree before the amendment as Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994 (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14470 of Dec. 31, 1994) of the same purport, in calculating the land excess profit which is the basis of the tax base of the land excess profit tax (the difference between the land value at the end of the taxable period and the land value at the start of the taxable period less the increase in normal land price from the difference between the land value at the end of the taxable period and the starting date thereof), the land value at the end of the taxable period and the starting date shall be based on the publicly assessed land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal Act, i.

(2) According to the above provisions (where part of the land on one parcel is excluded from idle land, etc. subject to the land excess profit tax due to the restriction on use by the laws and regulations, there is no special provision as to the land value of the remaining land). The defendant set the tax base for imposing the land excess profit tax only on the remaining land of this case, except for the land in which its use is restricted by the laws and regulations, and determined the tax base for imposing the land excess profit tax, based on the officially announced value of the land of this case as at the time of the determination of the land price of this case. On the contrary, the appraisal value of the remaining land of this case claimed by the plaintiff is limited to the internal appraised value by the appraiser during the process of determining the officially announced value, and it is not the standard market price (individually announced land price)

(3) However, there are many cases where the remaining land of one parcel excluded from a commercial development project area, etc. is practically limited to disposal, etc., and the characteristics of the land in the development area, etc. vary from the development area, etc. on the other hand, while the individual land price or officially announced land price is indicated as one square meter per piece of land, the appraisal for the determination is about the whole parcel of land, and the appraisal for the determination is formally added up after classifying the remaining land, etc., so if the use of part of one parcel of land is restricted due to the development project, etc., it is unreasonable to apply the overall land price in calculating the increase in the remaining land price

(4) Accordingly, in a case where most of one parcel belongs to a development-restricted zone and is excluded from idle land, etc., it is reasonable to exclude all of such one parcel from taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu19443, Oct. 11, 1994). In the same purport, in a case where imposing the value of the remaining land on the basis of the standard market price of the parcel (total) is extremely unreasonable under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the restriction based on the principle of substantial taxation may be applied.

(5) 갑 제2호증의 3, 4, 갑 제3호증의 3, 갑 제5호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재와 당원의 건설교통부장관에 대한 사실조회의 결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 이 사건 토지는 경남 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 ㅇㅇ마을 동측 뒷산에 위치하며 해발 100m 내지 250m에 이르는 순수 임야지대로 하단부 일부는 다소 완만하나 대부분 경사가 급한 맹지이고 도시계획법상 자연녹지(상단부의 일부는 개발제한지역이다)이며 고도가 높아 하단부 일부를 제외하고는 개발이 어려운 지대인 사실, 건설부장관이 1989. 11. 2. 그 중 경사가 비교적 완만한 하단부 4,231㎡를 택지개발예정지구(ㅇㅇ중부지구 562,000㎡)로 고시하였고, 1991. 11. 6.자로 택지개발예정지구변경지정 및 택지개발계획의 승인이 되었으며, 한편 건설부장관은 1990년 및 1993년 공시지가를 결정, 공시함에 있어서 이 사건 토지를 표준지로 선정하여 감정평가 등 소정 절차를 거쳐 그 지가를 결정하였으나, 그 기초가 된 감정평가는 이 사건 예정지가 위 개발예정지에 편입됨에 따라 이 사건 잔여지와는 토지의 특성이 현저하게 다르게 된 사정 때문에 우선 이를 구분하여 이 사건 잔여지에 대해서는 1991년 1㎡당 금 3,500원, 1993년 금 5,000원으로, 이 사건 예정지는 1㎡당 1991년 금 12,000원 1993년 금 39,000원으로 각 평가한 다음 면적에 의하여 가중 평균하여 이 사건 토지에 대하여 1㎡당 1990년 금 4,200원, 1993년 금 5,000원으로, 이 사건 예정지는 1㎡당 1991년 금 12,000원 1993년 금 39,000원으로 각 평가한 다음 면적에 의하여 가중 평균하여 이 사건 토지에 대하여 1㎡당 1990년 금 4,200원, 1993년 금 8,000원으로 평가하였고 위 평가 금액이 결국 이 사건 토지의 공시지가가 된 사실, 만약 이 사건 잔여지를 위 감정평가시의 그 부분 평가액에 따른다면 위 과세기간의 정상지가상승율에 비추어 토지초과이득이 없는 사실, 이 사건 토지는 1994. 4. 25. 대략 이 사건 예정지와 잔여지로 분할되었으나 당초의 택지예정지 지정시의 구획과는 면적 등이 일치하지는 아니한 사실, 1994년 공시지가 표준지 선정시에는 이 사건 토지가 위 택지개발사업의 실시 등으로 비교 표준지로 적합하지 못하다고 판단되어 제외된 사실 등이 인정되고 이와 달리 볼 증거 없다.

(6) In light of the above facts, since the scope of the above development project was not determined during the above taxable period, the remaining land in this case was also restricted in its use, such as division, disposition, etc. On the other hand, as a result of a huge impact on the land price of one parcel, the remaining land in this case is deemed to have been subject to the tax for excess profit of one parcel because the increase of the total land price in this case exceeds the normal land price increase due to the land price increase due to the land in this case, notwithstanding the fact that there was no increase in land price per itself. Under such circumstances, the imposition of tax based on this calculation is clearly compelling the taxpayer to make an unreasonable sacrifice, and it is unlawful in violation of the purport of the law excluding the land price in this case from the object of taxation or the principle of substantial taxation. Accordingly, in determining the tax base for excess profit of the remaining land in this case, it shall be deemed to have been unlawful by examining the other tax assessment based on the officially announced land price of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the taxation disposition of this case is unlawful is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the defendant's charge as the losing party.

May 29, 1996