Whether the calculation of the officially assessed individual land price is justifiable

Although the recent application of the officially assessed individual land price was made on the grounds that the transfer price was not traded, the illegality of the computation of the officially assessed individual land price cannot be immediately asserted in a tax lawsuit.

Article 99 of the Income Tax Act (Calculation of Standard Market Price)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on December 20, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 20, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred ○○○○○○○, ○○○○○, 175-1 and one parcel of land (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Korea Land Corporation, and received the price (the totaling KRW 69,029,029,333 won) around that time (the totaling KRW 175-186,674,000, and KRW 175-612,35,333 won). On August 31, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer price of the instant land as KRW 476,160,000,000, calculated the tax amount calculated accordingly, as the transfer income tax base for the transfer of the instant land, and made a preliminary return on August 31, 2006.

B. On October 20, 2006, under the premise that the transfer value of the instant land should be calculated based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2004 rather than the officially assessed individual land price in 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction of the tax base and tax amount with the purport that the transfer income tax amount would be revised to KRW 38,829,137, which was calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price in 2004, but the Defendant rejected the above correction on December 20, 2006.

C. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on March 21, 2007.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The officially assessed individual land price in 2006, which was the basis for calculating the amount of capital gains tax on the land of this case, shall be determined on February 15, 2004, in a arbitrary and arbitrary level by anticipated subsequent increase in land prices, even though there was almost no land price increase due to trade, etc. since the designation as a housing site development zone on February 15, 2004. As such, the capital gains tax on the transfer of the land of this case shall be imposed on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price in 2004, not

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Article 96 (2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144 of Dec. 30, 2006) provides that the standard market price at the time of transfer of the pertinent asset shall be the standard market price at the time of transfer in the case of transfer of the assets subject to the transfer income tax until December 31, 2006. Article 99 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that the standard market price shall be based on the officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, so in order to calculate the transfer price of the instant land transferred before December 31, 2006, the officially assessed individual land price at the time of the transfer of the instant land shall be calculated based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2006.

(2) However, in principle, the determination of the officially assessed individual land price is based on the procedure and method stipulated in the Act on the Public Announcement of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate and the Act on the Public Announcement of Values and Appraisal of Individual Land, and it is not directly related to the market price of the land in question. Thus, even if the price of the land in question differs from the market price or is determined differently from the change, the determination of the price cannot be deemed unlawful merely on such ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13056, Jul. 12, 1996). Unless there is any assertion as to the fact that there was any error in the selection of the comparison standard or the process of determining the price rate, etc. for the land in question, the determination of the officially assessed individual land price cannot be deemed unlawful merely on the ground that there was no actual transaction price increase due to the lack of transaction, etc. (a) the transfer price of the land in question calculated by applying the officially assessed individual

In addition, rather than claiming that the officially assessed individual land price in 2006 was unfairly calculated due to errors such as the method of determining the officially assessed individual land price, it shall be deemed that the officially assessed individual land price in 2006 was unfairly calculated on the premise that the price per se of the officially assessed individual land price, which forms the basis of the officially assessed individual land price, was too high, and even if it is deemed that the officially assessed individual land price in 2006 was unduly calculated, in order to raise an objection against the officially assessed individual land price of the land selected as the reference land, an administrative litigation to seek the cancellation of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price shall be filed after going through the procedure under Article 8(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and the illegality of the officially assessed individual land price in a tax lawsuit without following such procedure cannot be asserted (Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16468 delivered on November 10, 195)

(3)Therefore, it is reasonable to calculate the transfer income tax of the land of this case on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price in 2006. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion disputing this is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.