A. Whether in an administrative litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, such as taxation, the prior disposition of the officially assessed individual land price can be asserted as an independent ground for illegality

(b) Whether it is possible to determine an individual land price only when an error in the land characteristics survey is obvious;

(c) Whether a correction of the price of individual land takes effect retroactively to the initial basic date;

D. Where the individual land price on the commencement date of the taxable period is subject to the land excess profit tax by retroactively correcting the land price, whether it is against the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition, new rules, and the principle of protection of trust

A. In a case where there is an error in the determination of individual land price, the illegality itself can be asserted as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, and the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of administrative disposition such as taxation based on this, can also be asserted as an independent ground for illegality in the determination of individual land price.

B. According to Article 12-3 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices, in a case where there is an obvious error in land price calculation, such as a mistake in land characteristics, or a mistake or omission, etc., the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may make a decision by going through a deliberation of the local land appraisal committee. However, in a case of a minor matter, it may not go through a deliberation of the local land appraisal committee. Here, as an example in a case where there is an obvious error or omission in land characteristics, it shall be deemed that the decision of correction may be made if there is an obvious error in land price calculation, and it shall not be interpreted that the decision of

(c)if the decision of correction was publicly announced due to an obvious error in the land price computation, the original land price publicly announced in the original decision shall lose its effect and shall take effect retroactively on the basic date of the revised new land price.

D. The principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation is merely the purport that the pertinent tax law cannot be applied to the taxable requirements that were terminated before the entry into force of the tax law, but it is not intended to restrict later rectification on the ground that there was an error in the calculation of tax base. In calculating the tax base of the land price increase or the land excess profit tax, even if the individual land price on the starting date of the taxable period, which is the item of deduction, is subject to taxation of land excess profit tax as a result of the decision of correction to the effect that the individual land price on the starting date of the taxable period, which is the item of deduction, is not related to the issue of retroactive taxation, and it cannot be said that it violates the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of protection of trust by cancelling the illegal decision of individual land price based on

(a)b)Article 10(a) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, Article 10(a) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 19(b) of the Administrative Litigation Act; Article 12-3(d) of the Guidelines for Joint Investigations into Land Prices (Prime No. 248), Article 15 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 18(2);

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8542 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 849) 93Nu22524 delivered on March 8, 1994, and 93Nu425 delivered on May 10, 1994. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu2038 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong1991, 2632) 93Nu16925 delivered on December 7, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 386) 93Nu19566 delivered on June 14, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 1973)

Plaintiff

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu2277 delivered on June 15, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In a case where there is an error in the determination of individual land price, it can be asserted as an independent ground for illegality in the administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of administrative disposition such as taxation based on the above, which is the established view of party members (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8542 delivered on January 25, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2524 delivered on March 8, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2525 delivered on May 10, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu425 delivered on May 10, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu425 delivered on May 10, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 93Nu425 delivered on May 10, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 2009Nu870

2. On the second ground for appeal

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the high-sea market publicly announced the individual land price of 600,000,000 square meters as of January 1, 1990 of the original land, but determined that the price of the land of this case was significantly different from the officially announced land price of 704,000,000, 700, Goyang-gun, Goyang-gun, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the standard land price, pursuant to Article 12-3 of the Guidelines for the Comprehensive Land Price Appraisal and Assessment (amended by Prime Minister Directive No. 248 of March 29, 191), unlike the above standard land price of this case, in calculating new individual land price, the land of this case is different from the above standard land price of 1.04,000,000, and thus, it is difficult to have determined that the land price of this case, which was designated by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, was retroactively determined to be more than 190,010,0000.

(2) According to Article 12-3 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices, in a case where there is an obvious error in the calculation of land prices, such as a mistake in land characteristics, or a mistake or omission, etc., the head of a Si/Gun/Gu may make a decision by going through a deliberation of the local land appraisal committee. However, in a case of a minor matter, it may not go through a deliberation of the local land appraisal committee. Here, as an example in a case where there is an obvious error in land characteristics or a mistake in the calculation of land prices, it shall be deemed that the decision of correction can be made if there is an obvious error in the calculation of land prices, and it shall not be interpreted that the decision of correction can only be made, as shown in the judgment of the court below, and if the decision of correction was publicly announced as a result of an obvious fault in the calculation of land prices, the land price initially announced shall lose its effect, and the new individual land price, which was corrected, shall retroactively become effective (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu169

On the other hand, the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation is the purport that the pertinent tax law cannot be applied to the taxable requirements terminated before the entry into force of the tax law, and it is not intended to restrict later correction on the ground that there is an error in the calculation of tax base, and thus, in calculating the tax base of the land increase or the land excess profit tax, even if the land in this case is subject to the taxation of land excess profit tax as a result of the decision of correction to retroactively lower the individual land price on the starting date of the taxable period, which serves as the tax items, even if the land in this case is subject to the taxation of land excess profit tax, it is not related to the issue of retroactive taxation, and it cannot be said that it violates the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of protection of trust by cancelling the illegal individual land price determination based on Article 12-3 of the above investigation guidelines and determining new individual land price. Furthermore, it cannot be readily concluded that the result

If so, it is difficult to determine the legitimacy of the decision of correction without revealing whether the reference land was the same as the reference land selected at the time of the initial decision of correction and the reference land selected at the time of the original decision of correction, if different from each other, whether the reference land at the time of the original decision of correction are more similar to the reference land at the time of the original decision of correction, and if each reference land is the same as the reference land at the time of the original decision, it is impossible to determine the legitimacy of the decision of correction without revealing whether there was an error in the initial survey of land characteristics, such as misunderstanding the condition of the surface of the land at the time of the original decision of correction,

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)