In the case of transferring the land in fact designated as the land scheduled for replotting by a land readjustment project, the standards for calculating the real estate speculation suppression tax to be taxed.

In calculating the tax base of the real estate speculation suppression tax, if the land is designated as the land scheduled for substitution by a land readjustment project and the land actually converted into the site is transferred, it would be reasonable to view that the land scheduled for substitution itself is transferred.

Article 9 of the Act on Special Measures for the Suppression of Real Estate Speculation (Abolition)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Cleanness Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 71Gu397 delivered on November 14, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the difference between the acquisition price and the transfer price of all the land which are subject to taxation should be calculated on the basis of the standard amount of the market price of the relevant land which was publicly notified as to the land category and land in the public record, but the court below judged that the land of this case should be calculated on the basis of the land lot although the land was actually a site for the land readjustment project, and in particular, in calculating the transfer price, the land should be calculated on the basis of the land lot, which was reduced by replotting. Even if the land price was reduced by replotting, the exchange price cannot be determined on the basis of the land lot, because the exchange price is rather increased by replotting, so it is clearly determined that the defendant's taxation was illegal because the land price of this case was arbitrarily selected on the neighboring site, which was determined on the basis that the defendant's taxation was erroneous in interpreting the legal principles of the real estate speculation tax. According to the facts duly determined by the court below, the land category was the land category of this case, which was owned by the previous land substitution project, and it was determined on the land substitution No. 198. 196.58.68.

In the case of transferring the land which is designated as the land substitution under the land substitution project, it is reasonable to view that the land substitution price itself is transferred. In this case (Supreme Court Order 1972Nu136 delivered on Sep. 26, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 72Nu136 delivered on Jan. 1, 1968), the acquisition price and the transfer price should be calculated according to the land substitution price, and the transfer price should be calculated on the ground that the land is transferred as the land substitution price, and the transfer price should be calculated on the ground that there is no de facto change in the exchange value due to the land substitution. In addition, if all the land at the time of acquisition and transfer are considered as the site, the standard market price at the time of acquisition should be considered as KRW 8,000 per square, which shall be considered as KRW 12,00,000 per square, which shall be considered as the neighboring price of the land at the market price.

Therefore, the court below's decision is not erroneous in the decision that the transfer price of the land in this case cannot be deemed to exceed the acquisition price as a result of calculating the transfer price and the acquisition price. Therefore, the argument is groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)