Whether the proviso of Article 80-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which stipulates that the individual land price to be applied in the year concerned as of the date of acquisition shall be calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price applied in the year concerned, is contrary to the provisions of the parent law or invalid against the principle of substantial taxation (negative), and whether the officially assessed individual land price of the year concerned may be applied in a case where, although the officially assessed individual land price of the year concerned was not publicly notified on the date of acquisition or acquisition

The proviso of Article 80-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act purports to ensure legal stability and predictability by applying the officially assessed individual land price for the year immediately preceding the year in which the new officially assessed individual land price is not publicly announced in cases where the land is acquired or registered without a new individual land price for a considerable period from the base date to the time necessary to investigate the current status of the land to calculate such officially assessed individual land price. The purpose of the proviso of Article 80-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is to enable a taxpayer or a tax authority to predict a tax-related relationship in advance or make a final determination at an early stage before the date of public announcement. Thus, if the statutory standard price based on the publicly assessed individual land price for the year immediately preceding the year in which the above provision is applied is considerably higher than the market price, the tax base at the time of acquisition tax cannot be deemed as invalid against the provisions of the mother law or against the principle of substantial taxation, and in cases where the acquisition tax or registration tax for the year in question was not publicly notified in light of the proviso of Article 80-2 (1).

Article 111(1), (2), (7), and Article 130(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act; Article 80-2(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu14872 delivered on January 31, 200

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

Article 111 (1) (main sentence) of the Local Tax Act provides that the tax base for acquisition tax shall be the value at the time of acquisition, and Article 111 (2) provides that the value at the time of acquisition under paragraph (1) shall be the value reported by the acquisitor: Provided, That if there is no declaration or declaration price or such declaration price falls short of the current base value under any of the following subparagraphs, the current base value shall be the value calculated by multiplying the officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act by the applicable rate determined and publicly notified by the head of the relevant local government under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 111 (1) through (5) of the Local Tax Act provides that the tax base for registration tax shall be the value at the time of registration, and Article 130 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that the current base value for registration tax shall be the value at the time of acquisition, and if there is no declaration or declaration price falls short of the current base value for taxation under each subparagraph of Article 111 (2).

The proviso of Article 80-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act aims to ensure legal stability and predictability by applying the officially assessed individual land price for the year immediately preceding the year in which the new officially assessed individual land price is not publicly announced in cases where the land is acquired or registered without a new officially assessed individual land price for a considerable period from the base date to the time necessary to investigate the current status of the land to calculate such officially assessed individual land price. The purpose of the proviso of Article 80-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is to enable a taxpayer or a tax authority to anticipate a tax-related legal relationship in advance or determine early, even before the public notice of the new officially assessed individual land price for the year in question. Thus, if the statutory standard price based on the publicly assessed individual land price for the immediately preceding year in application of the above provision is considerably higher than the market price, it cannot be said that the tax base at the time of acquisition is contrary to the provisions of the parent-law law or invalid against the principle of substantial taxation. Meanwhile, in light of the proviso of Article 80-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, the acquisition tax shall not be applied.

In the same purport, even if the officially assessed individual land price for the pertinent year was determined and publicly announced on June 30, 199, immediately after the acquisition or registration of the pertinent land by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, it is justifiable to determine that the instant taxation disposition was lawful, applying the officially assessed individual land price for the year 1998, which was the immediately preceding year, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the tax base of acquisition tax, etc., as otherwise alleged in the

In addition, since the assessment base of acquisition tax and registration tax under the Local Tax Act do not take market attention, the appraised institution under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act cannot be deemed as the market price and the assessment base of the acquisition tax and registration tax can not be deemed as the basis for the assessment of the acquisition tax and the registration tax. In light of the interpretation of Article 111(2) of the Local Tax Act, the determination of the court below rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is justifiable, and the precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different, and thus, it cannot be a proper precedent in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)