A. Whether Article 46-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 436 of September 2, 1985) concerning the provisional grade of the land where the land to be reserved is designated is valid (affirmative)

B. Whether the provisions of paragraph (1) apply to the computation of "standard market price" that determines the standard market price under the Income Tax Act (affirmative)

C. Whether the illegality of taxation based on the grade can be asserted without going through the appeal procedure for the establishment or revision of the land grade (negative)

A. In a case where the land substitution is designated by the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act or the Farmland Improvement Project Act, the conditions of the use of the land in the land substitution project and the land in the land improvement project zone and the objective circumstance of the land substitution project may vary from before the land substitution is designated. Therefore, the provisions concerning the provisional grade under Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 436 of Sep. 2, 1985) of the same Enforcement Decree (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 11751 of Aug. 26, 1985) are merely a provision on the change of the land classification, the price of the land, which is the taxation requirement under Article 80-2 (2) of the same Enforcement Decree (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 11751 of Aug. 26, 1985).

(b) Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act provides that in the case of acquisition tax which is a local tax, provisional grades to be applied provisionally and that in determining the standard market price provided for in Article 115(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the calculation of the standard market price shall not be applied.

C. A landowner or an interested person who is dissatisfied with the determination or revision of the land grade shall obtain relief pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44 and 46 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and the disposition of capital gains tax, etc. based on the above grade shall not be asserted to be unlawful on the ground that the above procedure was not followed and the determination or revision was erroneous.

A. (B) Article 46-2(a) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 436 of Sep. 2, 1985). Article 80-2(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 11751 of Aug. 26, 1985) provides Article 115(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Article 44 and Article 46

C. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu114 delivered on September 12, 1989 (Gong1989, 1504)

[Defendant-Appellee] The Korea Fair Trade Commission of the Republic of Korea and the Korea Fair Trade Commission of the Republic of Korea (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Gangwon-gu Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu5067 delivered on May 25, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

In calculating gains from the transfer of land in an area other than a specific area determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, the provisions of Article 23(4), Article 45(1)1, and Article 60 of the Income Tax Act, and Article 115(1)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that both the acquisition value and the transfer value shall be based on the standard market price under the Local Tax Act.

However, according to Articles 80(1)1 and 80-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11751 of Aug. 26, 1985), the standard market price of land shall be determined by the method determined by the head of a Si/Gun as of the date determined by Municipal Ordinance once a year by classifying the land according to its land category, property level, or circumstances and by registering it in the land cadastre, forest ledger, and tax ledger. However, in cases where the land category or circumstances of which a grade is determined significantly change, it shall be determined at the land grade newly determined in accordance with the category, property level, or circumstances of the land similar to those of the land, and the procedure and method for the determination of grade and change of grade of the above land shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, according to Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 436 of Sep. 2, 1985), the head of a Si/Gun shall apply the land category or provisional land category, etc.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act provides a provisional grade to be applied temporarily in the case of acquisition tax which is a local tax, and Article 115-1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act does not apply to the calculation of the "standard market price" in the determination of the standard market price stipulated in Article 115-1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act.

In addition, a landowner or an interested person who is dissatisfied with the establishment or revision of the land grade shall receive relief pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44 and 46 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and it cannot be asserted that the disposition of imposition of capital gains tax, etc. under the above grade was unlawful on the ground that the above procedure for remedy was wrong (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu114 delivered on September 12, 1989). Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss that the judgment of the court below erred in incomplete deliberation or lack of reason due to the non-exercise of right to request explanation.

2. Next, we examine the defendant's grounds for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the land of this case, among the land of this case, which was in the original time in the original time, was divided into 567-1 of the same 567-1, which the plaintiff clan purchased for the first time to become the clan, and the plaintiff clan transferred since April 2, 1969 to June 13, 1985, the non-party 1, the descendants of the clan, and the fishing village scam scam scam scam scam scam scam scamscams, and the above land was in the market for its revenue. The above land was in violation of Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4019 of Dec. 26, 198), and Article 14 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12564 of Dec. 31, 1988).

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)