[1] In a case where the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu adjusts individual land price upon a request for reinspection, whether the applicant for reinspection can be disadvantageously adjusted

[2] The case holding that the decision of correction of individual land price based on the request for reexamination of individual land price was unlawful in violation of Article 36 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act since the decision of correction was disadvantageously reduced to the applicant for reexamination against the purport of reexamination

[1] Since a request for reinvestigation under Article 12-2 (1) of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Price of an individual land issued by the Prime Minister No. 241, 248, or 281 is one of the administrative appeals under the Special Act, even in cases where the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu adjusts the price of individual land upon request for reinvestigation pursuant to Article 43 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act, it shall not be subject to the application of Article 36 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act, and shall not be disadvantageously modified

[2] With respect to land excess profit tax imposed by the Plaintiff on the basis of the difference between the individual land price in 1990 and 1993, in order to avoid an excessive calculation, the difference shall be 550,000 won per the original land price in 190 as in the attached list 2 of the judgment below, and the individual land price in 1993 shall be 73,000 won per the original land price in 1993. As to the land in attached list 3 of the judgment below, the difference shall be adjusted to 550,000 won per the original land price in 1990 and 1993, and the individual land price in 1993 shall be adjusted to 1,340,000 won from 1,340,000 won to 916,000 won, or the defendant filed a request to re-examine the above list 2,3190 won to 9,000 won per the original land price in 190,50 or 200.

[1] Article 12-2(1) of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (Prime Minister’s Directive No. 241, 248, and 281); Articles 36(2) and 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act; Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Articles 36(2) and 43(2) of the Administrative Appeals Act; Article 12-2(1) of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices, etc. (Prime Minister’s Directive No. 241, 248, and 281); Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu6125 delivered on July 5, 1995

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Since a request for reinvestigation under Article 12-2 (1) of the Guidelines on the Joint Investigation of Individual Land Prices issued by the Prime Minister Directive No. 241, 248, and 281 is one of the administrative appeals under the Special Act, even in cases where other Acts provide special exceptions in regard to the administrative appeals, the "matters not provided for by the Administrative Appeals Act shall be governed by the provisions of the Administrative Appeals Act" shall not be modified to the applicant for reinvestigations under Article 43 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act that "the ruling authority of the administrative appeals shall not make any decision more unfavorable than the disposition that is the object of the request for reexamination," which is subject to Article 36 (2) of the Administrative Appeals Act.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, with respect to land excess profit tax imposed by the plaintiff on the basis of the difference between individual land prices in 1990 and 1993, 550,000 won in the attached list 2 of the judgment below that the plaintiff tried to reduce the difference in order to avoid an unreasonable excessive calculation, the individual land price in 1990 shall be adjusted to 73,000 won in the original amount, and the individual land price in 193 in the attached list 3 of the judgment below shall be adjusted to 50,000 won in 190 and 73,000 won in the amount from 550,000 to 1993, or from 1,340,000 won in the amount to 1,340,000 won in the amount to 1,916,000 won in the amount to 20,000 won in the original amount, the defendant alleged that the above list 2,390,000 won in each of the land price was unlawful.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

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.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)