Whether a land can be seen as a land without a publicly assessed individual land price

Since it is unfair to apply the officially assessed land price to the land lot before and after the division because the use of land is changed due to the change of land use, etc. after the division, it is unfair to apply the officially assessed land price to the land which is divided under the Cadastral Act.

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price)

Article 162 (Transfer or Acquisition Time)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On April 5, 2007, the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 43,662,270, capital gains tax of KRW 47,697,360, capital gains tax of KRW 47,662,270 granted to Plaintiff Kim Jong-ho, capital gains tax of KRW 43,662,270, capital gains tax of KRW 18,183,090, capital gains tax of KRW 18,183,090, capital gains tax of KRW 18,183,090, capital gains tax of KRW 43,662,270 granted by the head of Yangcheon-do Tax Office to Plaintiff Kim Jong-ho, which was made by the head of Yangcheon-do Tax Office to Plaintiff Kim-soo, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 11, 2005, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract to sell 1.77 billion won for the site of electric source housing (hereinafter “the instant purchaser”) to Nonparty ○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, 000 square meters (hereinafter “the instant lot number”) jointly owned (hereinafter “the instant lot number”). On September 28, 2005, the Plaintiffs agreed to sell 1.77 billion won for the site of electric source housing (hereinafter “the instant purchaser”). The remainder payment date was set as KRW 223,600,000,000,000 for the purchase of electric source housing, and the contract should be null and void if the purchaser fails to obtain a building permit, and the Plaintiffs consented to the use of the instant lot number for the building of the instant house by granting to the buyer on April 28, 2005.

B. Thereafter, around September 7, 2005, the number of this case’s maternity land was converted into 00-19 forest and 8,270 square meters, and around September 20, 2005, 635 square meters of forest and 635 square meters of forest, 00-19 forest and 568 square meters of the same 00-30-31 forest and 568 square meters of the same 00-32 forest and 603 square meters of the same 00-322 forest and 545 square meters of the same 00-34 forest and 204 square meters of the same 00-344 forest and 204 square meters of the same 00-35 forest and 545 square meters of the same 00-34 forest and 205 square meters of the same 20-5 forest and 204 square meters of each of the same 'the same 200-305 square meters of the same m of the same land.

C. After December 12, 2005, the Plaintiffs assessed the transfer price on the basis of KRW 102,00 per square meter per 200,000 per square meter of the land lot of this case, which was the officially assessed individual land price as of December 12, 2005, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 16,027,030 for each of the Plaintiffs Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim Jong-ho, and Kim Jong-do as transfer income tax for each of the instant land.

D. However, according to the Audit and Cadastral Records of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, the Defendants classified each of the instant lands into “land without individual land” under the proviso of Article 99(1) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 164(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 19254, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter “Decree”), and assessed the average value of the appraisal value of the Korea Appraisal Board and ○○ Certified Public Appraisal Board as the transfer value of each of the instant lands, and the Defendants imposed and notified the Plaintiffs of the transfer income tax for the year 2005 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

E. The Plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal against each of the instant dispositions, but all of them were dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10 through 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The plaintiffs sold to the purchaser before the land lot number of this case was divided, and divided the land lot number of this case into each land of this case after the sale contract of this case was concluded, and the plaintiffs did not complete the registration of ownership transfer before the division into each land of this case. This is because the problem of relocation of graveyard on the ground of the mother lot number of this case was resolved late. In such a case, it is reasonable to calculate the transfer price based on the officially assessed individual land price of the land of this case, even though it is reasonable to calculate the transfer price based on the publicly assessed individual land price of this case, the transfer price shall be calculated based on the publicly assessed individual land price of this case, and the transfer price shall be determined based on the price of each land of this case, and each disposition of

(2) Even if each of the instant lands constitutes a land without a publicly assessed individual land price, if the appraised value of each of the instant lands was set higher than the publicly assessed individual land price of January 1, 2006 for each of the instant lands, the appraisal of each of the instant lands is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price)

Article 162 (Transfer or Acquisition Time)

Article 164 (Assessment of Standard Market Price of Land and Building)

C. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (1)

On November 4, 2005, the time of the transfer of the mother lot number land of this case was determined to be a natural forest. The following circumstances revealed by the above recognition. In other words, the plaintiffs consented in advance to the buyer on April 2005, before the partition of the mother lot number of this case, to use the mother lot number land of this case for the construction of housing facilities. As the mother lot number of this case was divided into 12 parcels, "36-39 of this case" was changed in the category of land as a road, and the lot number of this case was increased since 2005, the individual land price of this case was determined to be a natural forest. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the mother lot number of this case was in a situation where the building of the whole house was planned to be constructed before and after the partition, since there was no change in the nature, location, purpose of use, form, and quality of the land before and after the partition, it constitutes a "the individual land price of this case" under Article 16 (1) 4 (a) of the Act.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of the above A. (2)

Article 21 (1) (main sentence) and (2) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act provide that where an appraisal business operator separately evaluates land at the request of any other person, it shall be based on the officially announced value of the reference land deemed to have similar usefulness to the relevant land. In that case, the appraisal business operator shall make an appraisal by comparing various factors affecting the objective value of the land such as location, topography, environment, etc. with the land to be appraised, and in order to maintain a balance between the appraised value and the officially announced value of the reference land in comparison with those affecting the objective value of the land to be appraised. In the appraisal business operator under Article 31 of the same Act, Article 17 (1) and (6) of the Appraisal Regulations, which provide for the principles and standards to be observed by the appraisal business operator in the appraisal and assessment of land, shall be based on the officially announced value of the reference land in the relevant land, land category, surrounding environment, etc. from the basic date to the time of the appraisal and assessment of land, the price increase rate and other factors affecting the land price.

According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 9 and 10 (including the virtual number), the Korea Appraisal Board and the ○○○○ Asset Appraisal Board, which requested by the head of the defendant Cheongju Tax Office, can recognize the fact that the land price is assessed by evaluating each of the geographical location of the land in this case as "Seoul High School Southern High School, the neighboring environment, the site location for housing site development, the road condition, the road condition, and the land transaction permission area." As for part of each of the land in this case, each of the land in this case is higher than the average amount of the appraised price as of January 1, 2006, it cannot be said that each appraisal is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion on the above part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.