Examination, transfer 2007-078 (21. 2007.03.21)

Even if the officially assessed individual land price was determined differently from the change, the price cannot be deemed unlawful.

In the case of claiming that the officially assessed individual land price was unfairly calculated, an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the determination of the land price shall be filed via the objection procedure, and the illegality of the officially assessed land price can not be asserted immediately in the tax litigation without going through such procedure.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price of Income Tax of the Gu)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's refusal to request correction of the transfer income tax belonging to the year 2006 against the plaintiff on November 24, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of each of the instant land by applying the officially assessed land price in 2005 (former 212-23: 163,000 won per square meter, and 123,000 won per square meter: 123,000 won per square meter: 123,000 won per square meter) to the Korea Land Corporation and received the payment of the price around that time. On April 20, 206, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of each of the instant land by applying the officially assessed land price in 2005 (former 212-23: 25,00 won per square meter: 123,00 won per square meter; 83,487,353 won per square meter as transfer income tax base for each of the instant land.

B. After that, on the premise that the transfer value of each land of this case on October 18, 2006 should be calculated on the basis of the officially assessed individual land price in 2004 instead of the officially assessed individual land price in 2005, the Plaintiff rejected the Plaintiff’s request for correction by notifying the Plaintiff of the fact that the transfer income tax amount should be revised to KRW 34,479,787, which was calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price in 2004, but the Defendant filed a request for correction of the tax base and tax amount. As to this request, the Defendant’s request for correction on November 24, 2006 constitutes a request for correction against the publicly assessed individual land price. Since the public notice duty was executed by the local government having jurisdiction over the location of the pertinent real estate, the Plaintiff’s request for correction was rejected by notifying the Plaintiff

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on February 2, 2007, but was dismissed on March 21, 2007.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The officially assessed individual land price in 2005, which was the basis for the calculation of capital gains tax of each of the instant lands, was determined as a housing site development zone on February 15, 2004, and was naturally high due to unexpected increase in land prices even though there was almost no trade, such as sale and purchase since the designation as a housing site development zone, and thus, the subsequent increase in land prices was anticipated. (On the other hand, the Plaintiff did not have any problems such as errors in land characteristics in calculating the error of the selection of standard land or the rate of price distribution. Therefore, the Plaintiff appears to have asserted as above on the premise that the officially assessed land price of standard land per se was determined high without any particular ground.) The capital gains from the transfer of each of the instant lands should not be assessed on the basis of

(b) Related statutes;

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price of Income Tax of the Gu)

C. Determination

(1) Article 96 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that the standard market price at the time of transfer of the relevant asset shall be based on the standard market price at the time of transfer when the relevant asset is transferred until December 31, 2006, and that the standard market price shall be based on the officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act. Thus, in order to calculate the transfer price of each of the instant land transferred before December 31, 2006, the individual officially assessed land price in 2006 at the time of the transfer of each of the instant land ( March 2006) shall be determined and publicly announced (Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act). However, in such a case, the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined and publicly announced every year (Article 164 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act).

(2) However, in principle, the determination of the officially assessed individual land price is based on whether it was made based on the procedures and methods stipulated in the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act and the guidelines for investigation and calculation of the publicly assessed individual land price, and it is not directly related to the market price of the pertinent land. Thus, even if the price of individual land is different from the market price or is determined differently from the market price, the determination of the price cannot be deemed unlawful solely on such grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13056, Jul. 12, 196). Thus, in the instant case where no assertion was made as to the fact that there was any error in the process of determining the comparison standard and the price ratio for each of the instant land, the determination of the officially assessed individual land price cannot be deemed unlawful merely

In addition, even if the plaintiff claims that the officially assessed individual land price in 2005 was unfairly calculated on the premise that the price per se of each of the lands of this case was excessively high due to errors such as the method of determining the officially assessed individual land price, etc., the plaintiff should file an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price of this case through the procedure of objection under Article 8(1) of the Act on the Selection as the Standard Land Price. However, without following such procedure, the illegality of the officially assessed land price of the standard land in a tax lawsuit can not be asserted (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16468, Nov. 10, 195). Thus, even if there is a defect in the calculation of the officially assessed land price of the standard land as alleged by the plaintiff, even if there is a defect,

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the Defendant’s instant disposition that calculated the transfer income tax of each of the instant lands based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2005 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.