Where a land scheduled for replotting is designated by a land readjustment project, the standard amount of taxation standard market price for the land in the land readjustment project district(=provisional grade newly established after the designation of land scheduled for replotting)

According to Articles 80(1)1 and 80-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995), and Article 46 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 668 of Dec. 30, 1995), where a land substitution substitution is designated as a result of the implementation of a land substitution and rearrangement project, the standard amount of taxation on the land in the land substitution and rearrangement project zone shall be based on the provisional class newly determined following the designation of the land substitution and rearrangement project, regardless of whether the land level determined before the land substitution is designated.

Article 97 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6292 of Dec. 29, 200), Article 164 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705 of Feb. 19, 2005), Article 77 (1) 2 (b) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 138 of Apr. 3, 2000), Article 80 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 195), Article 80 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 195) (see current Article 111 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act), Article 56 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 668 of Dec. 30, 1995)

Supreme Court Decision 88Nu11346 Decided October 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1699) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu9629 Decided July 26, 1991 (Gong1989, 2269) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5454 Decided December 24, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 644)

Plaintiff

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2004Nu23188 delivered on July 13, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 164 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005); Article 164 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Feb. 19, 2005); Article 46 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18705, Dec. 30, 1995); the standard market price at the time of acquisition of land acquired before the publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced publicly announced officially announced land prices shall be calculated by the prescribed formula; in such formula, the standard market price at the time of acquisition of land means the standard market price under the Local Tax Act before the amendment by Act No. 4995, Dec. 6, 1995; and Article 25 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 668, Dec. 30, 1994).

According to the records, the 181 grade stated in the "written confirmation of provisional grade of land," which the plaintiff asserts as the land grade of the previous land, is not the grade of the previous land, but the land grade of the land reserved for replotting of this case. Thus, the standard market price calculated based on the above grade of land is the standard market price of the land reserved for replotting of this case at the time of January 1, 1985, which is the fictitious acquisition date, and the acquisition price of the land of this case is calculated by multiplying the area of the land reserved for replotting by the size of the land reserved for replotting of this case is a legitimate measure as it is in accordance with Article 77 (1) 2 (b) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry

Although the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, it is eventually justifiable in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the standard market price calculated based on the above land grade is the standard market price of the previous land in this case, and the acquisition price should be calculated by multiplying the previous land area by the area of the previous land, not the area of the reserved land

As long as the standard market price calculated based on the above land grade is not the standard market price of the previous land but the standard market price of the land to be reserved, the Plaintiff’s assertion premiseding that the above standard market price is the standard market price of the previous land, that is, if the acquisition value is calculated by multiplying the standard market price of the previous land by the area of the land to be reserved, the acquisition value is underestimated and appropriated as the area of the land reduced by the designation of the land to be reserved, so the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)