Whether it is inevitable to determine whether it falls under such idle land

Before the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, the above rearrangement project was already implemented, and if the instant land was incorporated into the project district from the beginning, the inevitable reasons for the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be seen as idle land as long as it had already occurred prior to the acquisition of the instant land.

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

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. 2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or if Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 10-1, 10-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 3 are collected, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

(1) On June 29, 1991, the Plaintiff acquired 744/1,488 shares of 1,488 square meters of 00 ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, 132 forest land (hereinafter “Before replotting”) prior to the implementation of the land readjustment project, which was designated as a land scheduled for replotting as of June 29, 191.

(2) On December 23, 1990, the land prior to the above replotting was replaced with the land of ○○○○-dong 2, 00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000

(3) The Defendant deemed that 1/2 shares of the above 91 block 3 408.5 square meters of the above 91 block 408.5 square meters of the above 91 block 408.4 square meters of the above 91 block 408.4 square meters of the above 91 block 408.2 square meters of the above 204 square meters of the above 91 block 204.2 square meters of the above 204 square meters of the land excess profit-taking Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) were the land excess profit-taking tax (the above 19.162 square meters of the above 19.19.162 square meters of the above 19.32 square meters of the above 19.31 square meters of the above land) and the above 19.16.31 square meters of the above 19.16.

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. As to the assertion that the determination of the officially announced value, which serves as the basis for calculating the tax base, was erroneous, the Plaintiff first purchased the above 790,000,000,000 won for each of the above 00,000,000 won for each of the above 1990,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above 0,000,000 won for each of the above land.

In light of the time interval between the basic date of the officially assessed individual land price in January 1, 1991 and the transaction period, as alleged by the Plaintiff, or the current officially assessed individual land price in January 1, 1992 as of January 1, 1992 (see, e.g., evidence Nos. 4-1, 2) on each of the land of this case, it is difficult to conclude that the determination of the officially assessed individual land price in 191 was erroneous, and there is no other obvious evidence to deem otherwise to have been erroneous in the determination of the officially assessed individual land price of this case on each of the land of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the determination of each of the officially assessed individual land price of this case was erroneous, is without merit.

B. As to the assertion that the land of this case is not idle land, the plaintiff again argues that the land of this case is illegal as it was legally impossible to use each of the land of this case in any form until April 31, 1994 after the acquisition of each of the land of this case, as the land of this case was implemented by the ○○○ District Land Readjustment Project for the purpose of improving the residential environment of the undeveloped area and expanding urban infrastructure in the daily zone, such as ○○○ Dong, etc. where each of the land of this case is located, even though the land of this case cannot be viewed as idle land under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, the defendant's disposition of this case imposing the land excess profit as idle land cannot be seen as a disposition without any ground.

Article 8 (1) 14 (a) of the former Act and Article 21 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree provide that idle land, etc. subject to the above land excess profit tax shall not fall under Article 8 (1) 1 through 13 of the Act, and land shall not be used for any purpose. According to Article 8 (3) of the above Act, the land falling under idle land, etc. shall not be deemed idle land, etc. for the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree, notwithstanding the provision of paragraph (1) of the above Article 8 (1) 3, since the above provision of Article 8 (1) 14 (a) of the former Act and Article 21 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act was enforced since 300,000 after the acquisition of the land within the above 9th project district, and it shall not be deemed to be subject to the prohibition of the use of the land due to the above provision of the former Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act.

(1) (A) The plaintiff also asserts that the disposition of this case by the defendant is unlawful as it applied the old law that was decided to be inconsistent with the Constitution by the decision of the Constitutional Court, and as long as the new law amended on December 22, 1994 in accordance with the above decision of the Constitutional Court was newly implemented, the amount of the tax should be calculated in accordance with the new law, as long as it had been newly implemented in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court.

(B) Considering that the above provisions of the former Tax Act (No. 4177 of Dec. 30, 1989; No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993; No. 4563 of Jun. 11, 1993); Articles 8, 8(1)13, 10, 11, 12, 22, and 23 of the former Constitutional Court Act are unconstitutional (92Hun-Ba49,52) and are unconstitutional since the above provisions of the same Act were unconstitutional; the above provisions of Article 8(1)13, 12, and 23 (3) of the former Constitutional Court Act are unconstitutional; since the above provisions of the same Act were unconstitutional; since the above provisions of the same Act were enacted on July 29, 1994, the above provisions of the Constitutional Court shall be deemed unconstitutional; thus, the latter provisions of Article 11(2) of the former Constitutional Court Act shall be deemed unconstitutional.

(C) If so, Articles 8(1)13 and 14(a), 11(2), 12, 23(3), and 26(1) of the former Act (Article 8(1)13 and 14(a), 11, 11-2, 12, and 26 of the former Act) shall apply to the land excess gains in the preceding taxable period. As a result, the instant disposition is lawful only within the scope of legitimate tax amount calculated by applying the provisions of the said new Act related to the unconstitutionality, and the part beyond the scope shall be deemed unlawful.

(b) Justifiable tax amount;

Furthermore, according to the provisions of Article 8 (1) 13 and Article 23 (3) of the amended provisions relating to the unconstitutionality of the tax base for each of the above taxable periods, there is no concern as to whether to apply the new provisions to the above excess of 10 million won, and Articles 11, 11-2, 12, and 26 of the new Act concerning the remaining provisions of Article 11 (1) shall apply to the calculation of the standard market price of the above land so that the value of the above excess of 10 million won can be calculated based on the 10th anniversary of the date of commencement of the above taxable period. According to the provisions of Article 11 (1) of the new Act, the above excess of 10 million won can be calculated based on the standard market price of the above land which is calculated based on the 10th day after the date of commencement of the immediately preceding taxable period. According to the provisions of Article 11 (2) of the Act, if the land price of the above excess of 10th day is deducted from the standard market price of the applicable period.

Next, if Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 3 are collected with all the arguments, the standard market price of each land of this case as of January 1, 1990, respectively, shall be 250,000 won as of January 1, 1991, and 220,000 won as of January 1, 1991, respectively, and 728,000 won as of January 1, 1992 and January 1, 1993, and 4.53% as of January 1, 1993, respectively, the fact that the normal land price increase during the above taxable period is 4.53% as of January 1, 199, and there is no counter-proof.

그러므로, 위 인정사실에 위 각 신법조항을 적용하여 이 사건 각 토지를 소유하고 있는 원고가 부담하여야 할 세액을 산출하여 보면, 우선 이 사건 각 토지에 관한 과세기간 종료일의 지가는 제1토지의 경우 금 148,694,000원(금 728,000원 x 204.25㎡), 제2토지의 경우 금 148,657,600원(금 728,000원 x 204.2㎡)이고, 과세기간 개시일의 지가는 제1토지의 경우 금 51,062,500원(금 250,000원 x 204.25㎡), 제2토지의 경우 금 51,050,000원(금 250,000원 x 204.2㎡)이며, 그 종료일과 개시일 사이의 정상지가 상승분은 제1토지의 경우 금 22,738,131원(금 51,062,500원 x 44.53%, 원미만은 편의상 버림, 이하 같다), 제2토지의 경우 금 22,732,565원(금 51,050,000원 x 44.53%)이고, 그 결과 이 사건 각 토지에 대한 앞서 본 과세기간 동안의 토지초과이득은 제1토지의 경우 금 74,893,369원[금 148,694,000원 - (금 51,062,500원 + 금 22,738,131원)]이, 제2토지의 경우 금 74,875,035원[금 148,657,600원 - (금 51,050,000원 + 금 22,732,565원)]이 각 되고, 한편, 비과세기간의 종료일로서 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 취득하기 전날의 각 지가는 제1토지의 경우 금 96,814,500원[{금 220,000원 + (금 728,000원 - 금 220,000원) x 6월/12월} x 204.25㎡], 제2토지의 경우 금 96,790,800원[{금 220,000원 + (금 728,000원 - 금 220,000원) x 6월/12월} x 204.2㎡]이므로 과세기간 개시일로부터 원고가 이 사건 각 토지를 취득하기까지의 기간의 토지초과이득은 제1토지의 경우 금 35,096,474원[금 74,893,369원 x (금 96,814,500원 - 금 51,062,500원) / (금 148,694,000원 - 금 51,062,500원)], 제2토지의 경우 금 35,087,882원[금 74,875,035원 x (금 96,790,800원 - 금 51,050,000원) / (금 148,657,600원 - 금 51,050,000원)]이 되며, 따라서 당해 과세기간 동안의 각 토지초과이득에서 위 비과세기간 동안의 각 토지초과이득액 및 기본공제액 금 2,000,000원을 각 공제하면(신법 제11조의 2) 과세표준액은 이 사건 제1토지의 경우 금 37,796,895원[금 74,893,369원 - (금 35,096,474원 + 금 2,000,000원}]이, 이 사건 제2토지의 경우 금 37,787,153원[금 74,875,035원 - (금 35,087,882원 + 금 2,000,000원}]이 되며, 이에 신법 제12조의 세율을 적용하면 그 세액은 이 사건 제1토지의 경우 금 16,898,447원[(금 37,796,895원 - 금 10,000,000원) x 50% + 금 3,000,000원)이, 이 사건 제2토지의 경우 금 16,893,576원[(금 37,787,153원 - 금 10,000,000원) x 50% + 금 3,000,000원)이 되므로, 결국 그 각 세액의 합계액은 금 33,792,023원(금 16,898,447원 + 금 16,893,576원)이 됨은 계산상 명백하다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case cannot be deemed unlawful as it is within the scope of the above legitimate tax amount. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the disposition is unlawful is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.