Whether there exists any land excess profit;

If the land excess profit is deducted from the land excess profit in the taxable period of the land in this case, which does not fall under the idle land, the land excess profit in this case does not exist, and thus, the disposition of imposition is unreasonable.

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

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 59,360,850 against the Plaintiff on November 16, 1991 is revoked. 2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Details of the instant disposition;

갑 제1호증의 1, 2, 제2, 3호증, 제4호증의 1 내지 4, 을 제1호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ 대 704.6제곱미터, ㅇㅇ의 4대 795.8제곱미터, ㅇㅇ의 13 대 214.7제곱미터, ㅇㅇ의 14 대 1271.9제곱미터등 합계 2,987제곱미터(이하 이 사건 토지라고 한다)를 취득하여 소유하고 있는 사실, 피고는 원고 소유의 이 사건 토지가 토지초과이득세법 제8조 제1항 제14호 (가)목, 같은법 시행령 제21조 제1항 제1호 소정의 나지로서 1990. 1. 1.부터 같은해 12. 31.까지를 토지초과이득세법 제23조에 규정된 예정결정기간으로 하여, 1991. 11. 16. 원고에 대하여 이 사건 토지의 개별필지의 기준시가에 관하여 과세기간 개시일에는 제곱미터당 금190,000원, 종료일에는 제곱미터당 금288,000원으로 하여 이 사건 토지의 지가상승분을 산정한 다음 이 사건 토지중 위 ㅇㅇ의 14 대 1271.9제곱미터에 대하여는 무주택나지라는 이유로 그중 264제곱미터부분에 대하여 과세대상에서 제외하기로 하고 별지 세액계산명세표 기재와 같이 산출한 토지초과이득세 금59,360,850원의 부과처분을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition and the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful, although the land of this case was actually completed on December 30, 198 on the land incorporated in the land readjustment project district, the period from that time to two years pursuant to Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not regard the land as idle land, etc., and even if it is not so, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the purpose of constructing a new building, the disposition of this case by the defendant regarding the land of this case as idle

(b) Related statutes;

According to the provisions of Article 2 (1) 5 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, the individual land falling under each subparagraph of Article 8 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to be the idle land, etc. subject to the imposition of the land excess profit tax. In particular, according to the provisions of Article 8 (1) 14 (a) of the same Act and Article 21 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the land which does not fall under any of the provisions of Article 8 (1) 1 through 13 of the same Act shall be deemed to fall under the idle land, etc. but is not used for any of the purposes; however, according to the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the same Act, the land price shall not be deemed to fall under the standard market price of the land in excess of the period of time after its acquisition, and according to the provisions of subparagraph 4 of Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the land price shall not be deemed to fall under the standard market price of the land in excess period of the same period.

C. Determination

앞에서든 각 증거들과 갑 제5 내지 8호증, 을 제2호증의 1, 2의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고가 이 사건 토지를 취득하여 소유하고 있었는데 취득 후인 1978. 3. 31. 이 사건 토지를 포함한 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 일대가 ㅇㅇ도 고시 제78-123호에 의하여 ㅇㅇ지구 토지구획정리사업지구로 지정된 다음, 이 사건 토지에 대한 구획단위의 구획정리사업이 1988. 12. 15. 사실상 완료된 후 같은 해 30. 환지처분공고가 된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 을 제3, 4호증은 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니하고 달리 반증이 없으므로, 위 인정사실에 의하면, 이 사건 토지는 취득후 토지구획정리사업지구 안에 편입되었으므로 그 사업시행지구로 지정된 날로부터 사업이 구획단위로 사실상 완료된 1988. 12. 15. 이후 2년인 1990. 12. 15.까지는 유휴토지에 해당하지 아니하고, 그 다음날인 같은 달 16. 이후부터는 유휴토지에 해당하여 이 사건 예정결정기간 종료일인 같은 해 31. 현재는 유휴토지에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, in calculating the land price increase period from January 1, 1990 to December 15 of the same year, which does not fall under idle land, the land price increase shall be calculated by subtracting the land price on the date of commencement from the land price on the date of completion of the period. Since the land price shall be subject to the standard market price on the individual plot of land on the date of commencement and the date of commencement of the taxable period, the standard market price on the individual plot of land on the date of commencement shall be the same as the standard market price on the individual plot of land on the date of commencement of the taxable period, and the date of completion shall be the same as the standard market price on the individual plot of land at the time of December 15 of the same year, but at the time of December 31 of the same year, which is within one month from that time, the expiration date of the taxable period, which does not fall under the standard market price on the individual plot of land on the date of expiration of the taxable period on December 15 of the same year, the land price increase shall not fall under the standard market price on the same 20.

Therefore, if the tax base of the land excess profit tax of this case calculated by deducting the normal increase in land prices from 268,814,00 won in the taxable period of 268,814,00 won, namely, the tax base of the land excess profit tax of this case, namely, the tax base of the land excess profit tax of this case, 107,928,823 won [107,928,823 x 268,814,00 won ± 268,814,00 won ± 268,814,00 won)] is deducted from the land excess profit of this case for the period not falling under the idle land, etc. of this case in the taxable period of the land of this case, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful on the premise that the land excess profit of this case was made, even if the land excess profit of this case had no longer been made.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and therefore it is so accepted and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.