Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap60538 (Law No. 11, 2014)

It is illegal to evaluate the right to occupy the association by multiplying the appraisal value by the proportion ratio.

The method of assessing the value of a right (value of appraisal x rate) calculated by a cooperative 'right to acquire real estate' is not a legitimate supplementary assessment method, but it is not permissible because there is no other reasonable ground provision to justify it.

Evaluation of superficies Article 51 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Nu6087 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

The AA

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap60538 decided July 11, 2014

February 26, 2015

March 19, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The disposition taken by the Defendant on December 1, 2012 by the Plaintiff on the imposition of the inheritance tax OOO(including additional OOOO) shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows, and therefore, it is cited by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts used for cutting.

The market price of the instant real estate in the fifth to sixth page 5 is the market price of the right to acquire the real estate, and the part of the six to seven acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18615, Jun. 12, 2014) are as follows.

[See Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18615 Decided June 12, 2014; see 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) and Article 51(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be deemed as the value appraised by the proportion of the appraised value of the instant real estate. Furthermore, according to Article 60(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du17892, Feb. 11, 2010), since the value of the instant real estate multiplied by the proportion of the appraised value is an objective exchange value formed through normal transactions, including the value appraised in an objective and reasonable manner, the allegation to this purport cannot be accepted).

○ The following shall be added to the 5th page 8 next activity:

[Defendant asserted in the appellate court that the "right to acquire real estate" at issue in this case through retroactive appraisal (hereinafter "right in this case") is expected to prove the value of the right to acquire real estate in this case. However, in similar cases to this case, the court ordered two appraisal agencies to appraise the value of the right to acquire real estate by applying the proportionality rate, and accordingly, this court maintained the first instance court's decision revoking the disposition of imposition on the ground that the value of the right to acquire real estate cannot be determined as the value of the right to acquire real estate, regardless of the above appraisal result (Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu38468 decided Oct. 16, 2014; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du38468 decided Feb. 26, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2014Du14211 decided Feb. 26, 2015). In addition, in light of these circumstances, it is difficult to compute the market value of the right in this case as the right to purchase and sell real estate in this case, as the price of real estate can not be assessed.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.