beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this Court is as follows, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The portion used in the amendment is as follows: “The market price of the instant real estate” in the fifth 5-6th tier, “The market price of the right to acquire the real estate”, and the part of the 6-7th class “(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18615, Jun. 12, 2014)” is as follows.
[See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18615, Jun. 12, 2014; see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18615, Jun. 12, 2014; the value of the right calculated by multiplying the appraised value of the instant real estate by the proportional rate shall not be deemed the appraised value under Articles 60(3) and 61(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10411, Dec. 27, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 51(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and the market value under Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2007Du17892, Feb. 11, 2010; referring to the objective exchange value formed through normal transactions; including the appraised value in an objective and reasonable manner
[2] The following shall be added to the 5th page 8:
[Defendant alleged in the appellate court that “the right to acquire real estate” at issue in this case through retroactive appraisal (hereinafter “the right in this case”) is expected to prove the value of “the right to acquire real estate,” but in a case similar to this case, the court ordered two appraisal agencies to appraise the value of the right to acquire real estate by applying the proportional ratio. Accordingly, this court cannot recognize the value of the right to acquire real estate as the value of the right to acquire each of the above appraisal values. Thus, notwithstanding the above appraisal result, the real estate can be acquired inevitably.