Cho Jae-2012-Seoul Government-3606 ( December 13, 2012)

The conversion price of rent shall be calculated on the basis of rent as of the date of inheritance or donation and shall not include management expenses.

The conversion price of rent shall be calculated based on the rent as of the date of inheritance or donation, not the rent received for one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance, and the management fee shall not be included in the calculation of the conversion price.

Article 61 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Appraisal of Real Estate

Article 50 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap5061 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

1. The AA

2.B

3. The JointCC;

○ Head of tax office

December 13, 2013

March 14, 2014

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of each inheritance tax of KRW 00 (including additional tax), KRW 000 (including additional tax), KRW 000 (including additional tax), and KRW 000 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff andCC shall be revoked on May 1, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 8, 2011, ○○○○○-dong, 000 00 00 m200 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) and above ground reinforced concrete building (hereinafter “instant building”; and, in addition to the instant land and the instant building, hereinafter “the instant real estate”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of RedD (hereinafter “the network”) and the name of Plaintiff A, her husband, with respect to 1/2 m2 shares of each of the instant building. The deceased died on February 8, 201, and the deceased inherited the deceased’s property by Plaintiff AA, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, andCC succeeded to the deceased’s property. The Plaintiffs agreed on the inheritance division agreement on June 27, 2011 to vest the Plaintiff B andCC in each of the shares.

B. On February 24, 2011, the Plaintiffs requested the EE Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “EE”) and the FF Appraisal Corporation (hereinafter “FF”) to appraise the market value of the instant real estate. EE assessed the value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 = ((1/2 of the instant land + 000 won of the instant building + 000 won of the instant building) x 1/2); and FF assessed the value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 [30 of the instant land + (00 won of the instant building + 00 won of the instant building) x 1/2].

C. Accordingly, on August 29, 201, the Plaintiffs calculated the value of the instant real estate (=(200 won +00 won + 1/2, hereinafter “original appraised value”) at the average of the above appraised value on August 29, 201, and reported the value of the inherited property as KRW 000, including the value of the inherited property, and received permission for annual installments payment of KRW 000,000 among them.

D. From January 6, 2012 to April 16, 2012, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office conducted an inheritance tax investigation on the Plaintiffs, and requested the GG appraisal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “GG”) and the Korea Appraisal Board to re-appraisal the instant real estate on the ground that “The reported value falls under the proviso of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25195, Feb. 21, 2014)”.

GG calculated the value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 (=(00 won in the instant land + 000 won in the instant building + 000 won in the instant building) ¡¿ 1/2). The Korea Appraisal Board calculated the value of the instant real estate as KRW 000 (=(00 won in the instant land + 000 won in the instant building + 000 won in the instant building) ¡¿ 1/2). Accordingly, the head of ○○ Regional Tax Office, which is the average value of the said appraised value, deemed the value of the instant real estate and notified the Defendant thereof.

E. Accordingly, on May 1, 2012, the Defendant calculated the amount of tax to be additionally paid by the Plaintiff Company B andCC as KRW 000, and imposed the Plaintiff Company’s KRW 000 (including the additional tax), KRW 00 (including the additional tax), and KRW 000 (including the additional tax) on the Plaintiff Company’s Republic of Korea, and KRW 000 (including the additional tax) on the Plaintiff Company’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the request for adjudication on July 27, 2012, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on December 13, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 19 (including provisional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Considering the following circumstances, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

(1) The proviso of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, in principle, recognizes the appraisal value assessed by an appraisal institution as the market price. However, the appraisal value is 165.57% of the calculated value based on the officially assessed individual land price of the instant real estate, the standard market price, or the conversion price of rent. However, the original appraisal value is 96.49% of the converted value of rent excluding expenses for compensating actual expenses, such as management expenses, based on the rent actually received until the commencement of the inheritance, and 96.71% of the converted value of rent excluding expenses for compensating actual expenses, such as management expenses, based on the monthly rent at the time of the commencement of the inheritance. Therefore, the latter

(2) Even if meeting the re-appraisal requirement, ① the land conditions and access conditions are high compared to the land of 00-3, 000-3, which is the land of this case compared with the land of this case, and GG and the Korea Appraisal Board calculated the gap rate of individual factors more than the land of 00-9, 000-9, which is the land of this case. However, even if the land of this case is compared with the land of this case, GG and the Korea Appraisal Board calculated the difference rate of individual factors. ② GG calculated the difference of the 000-50, 00-3, 00-21, which is the comparison of land of this case, as the land of this case, the land of this case was calculated for 00-3,000-50 and the land of 00-210-9, which is the compared land of this case, the total appraisal rate of 170-1,000-1,000-1,000.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The instant land was combined on January 6, 201 with 00 square meters in Seoul, ○○○○-dong 000-0 large 000 square meters, 000 large 00-0 large 000 square meters, 000 large 00-00 large 000 square meters and became the instant land after being combined. Of the instant land, 000 square meters in general commercial areas and 000 square meters in a quasi-residential area are located within a quasi-residential area.

As of January 1, 201, the officially assessed individual land price prior to the annexation of each land is KRW 000, respectively.

(2) The date of approval for the use of the instant building is October 19, 1971. The structure of the instant building is a reinforced concrete building (the first floor to the third floor), a lightweight framed building (the fourth floor), a flat save and a sloping roof (the fourth floor), and its use are neighborhood living facilities, and its total floor area is zero thousand square meters.

(3) The following are the details of rent, deposit, and management expenses under the lease agreement concluded between the lessee, the deceased, and the Plaintiff Han concerning the instant building.

(Omission of List)

(4) According to Article 6 of the lease agreement concluded between the deceased, the Plaintiff, the HA, and the competentJ, “1. The lessee bears all kinds of public charges and charges, such as heating, cooling, electricity, water, gas charges, charges for causing traffic congestion, environmental improvement charges, and environmental improvement charges for the leased object. If the electricity and water rates are overdue for more than two months, the lessor may terminate the lease. 2. The lessee bears all other management expenses incurred in the whole management of the building with the lessor and other lessee and the cost is zero won. Meanwhile, the lessee, other than the UNH and the competent JJ, bears all kinds of public charges and charges, such as heating, cooling, electricity, water, gas charges, charges for causing traffic congestion, environmental improvement charges.

(5) In addition to the rent, the Plaintiff and the Deceased issued a tax invoice on the rent, management fee, and electricity fee to the lessee who separately receives the management fee, and respectively, issued the tax invoice on the rent and electricity fee to the H and the ICJ.

(6) On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff Company reported the issue of the tax invoice at KRW 000.

(7) EE, F, GG, and the Korea Appraisal Board selected the portion of the general commercial area among the instant land as a comparative standard site with respect to the portion of 00-3 large 000 square meters in Seoul, ○○○-dong, Seoul, 000-9 large 00 square meters in the semi-residential area (hereinafter referred to as “per parcel number”). The officially announced land price of 000-3 land is KRW 000,000, and the officially announced land price of 000-9 land is KRW 00.

The details of the appraisal on the instant real estate are as follows.

The details of appraisal on the building of this case (the omission of the list)

The appraisal precedents and sales cases of neighboring land - Other factors gap calculation (the omission of marks)

The durable years, etc. of the building in this case (the omission of the tag)

As a result of appraisal of the real estate in this case (the omission of marks)

(8) The branch KK, a professional examiner, presented its opinion as follows:

○ As to the instant land

▸준주거지역 부분의 개별요인 보정치에 관하여, EE, FF는 유사한 보정치를 적용하였으나, GG은 1.460을, 한국감정원은 1.870을 적용하였는바, 가로조건, 접근조건, 환경조건, 획지조건, 행정적조건, 기타조건에 있어 이러한 차이가 나는 것이 이례적인지 여부

-E and F are 1.714 and 1.728, respectively, in comparison with individual factors in quasi-residential areas; GG and the Korea Appraisal Board are 1.460 and 1.870, respectively; as the highest gap rate of 1.870, the highest gap of 1.870 exceeds 1.460%, the lowest gap of 1.460%, the highest gap of which can be somewhat proportional. However, GG applying the lowest gap of 1.700 in the amendment to other factors, while the Korea Appraisal Board applying the highest gap of 1.300 to the appraisal value by applying the highest gap of 1.300 to the appraisal value.

▸준주거지역에 대한 GG과 한국감정원의 개별요인 보정치 산정근거를 보면, 가로조건은 1.20:1.30, 접근조건은 1.05:1.20, 환경조건은 1.10:1.00, 획지조건은 1.05:1.20, 행정적조건은 1.00:1.00, 기타조건은 1.00:1.00로 차이를 보이고 있는데, 이러한 차이가 적정하다고 볼 수 있는지

- The difference in the respective terms and conditions in six above is not or identical to the difference in street conditions, environmental conditions, administrative conditions, and other conditions, but it can be seen that there is a somewhat difference because 1.20, the highest gap in the approach conditions and the location conditions, exceeds 1.05%, which is the lowest gap of 1.05%, and thus is somewhat different. The difference in the above six terms and conditions is expressed in the difference in 1.870 and 1.460 of the Korea Appraisal Board.

It is difficult to judge simply what is more appropriate among the individual factors gap rates between the original appraisal institution and the secondary appraisal institution. There is no big difference between three appraisal institutions, but the gap rate of GG is somewhat low. The difference rate is lower than the appraised value, but there is no big difference among other factors.

According to Article 17(1) and (6) of the Regulations on Appraisal (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 508, Aug. 2, 2012; hereinafter “Rules on Appraisal”) stipulating the principles and standards to be observed at the time of appraisal, necessary adjustment should be made by comprehensively taking into account the land subject to appraisal, specific-use area, utilization status, land category, surrounding environment, etc. based on the officially announced value of reference land located in the same or similar area from the basic date to the date of pricing, the rate of increase in the market price and other matters, and analysis of the regional factors, etc. of the land subject to appraisal and the reference land price. In this case, “other matters” include “other factors affecting the land price.” Although other factors are not specifically defined in the Rules on Appraisal and Assessment, it is not stipulated that the method of correcting the officially announced land price and the neighboring transaction price level at the time of the appraisal and assessment should be considered as the factors similar to the appraisal and assessment in the neighboring area.

Therefore, the correction of other factors is determined by the gap between the officially announced price of the standard land and the normal transaction price level, and the determination of the normal price level through the analysis of the officially announced price of the standard land is based on the case, so there is no answer as to how much correction is appropriate.

EE presents the data on the appraisal of neighboring region, sales cases, the price level, the officially assessed land price of the main land, the successful bid price of the relevant region, and the bid price ratio of the relevant region. In light of the land price level and trends in neighboring region, the general commercial area was revised by 1.30 in the case of general commercial area and 1.40 in the semi-residential area, there is no specific basis for calculation for correction;

FF presents the data on the analysis of successful bid price in this case, including the level of land price in the neighboring area, the assessment of the actual transaction price, the data on the successful bid price, and the data on the analysis of auction bid information, and there is no specific basis for calculation on the basis that the revision was made for the general commercial area 1.30 in the case of the general commercial area, and 1.40 in the semiresidential area, taking into account the level of normal land price in the neighboring area

GG presents a precedent and sales case in the neighboring region, and by analyzing other factors correction method, general commercial area is calculated by analyzing the sales case of 000-50, 000 - 00 - 21, and quasi-residential area is calculated by analyzing the present price of auction evaluation of 000-21 - 00 - and calculating other factors. It is reasonable to analyze the normal sale case of general commercial area and other factors, and to estimate 1.70 1.70 - 1.70 - 1 - 70 - by analyzing precedents of auction evaluation in the neighboring region. However, it is somewhat inappropriate to assess the present value of quasi-residential area and other factors correction. Of the example, only the present value of compensation evaluation can be calculated as the value of other factors at the time of compensation, and it is reasonable to utilize it as reference materials in order to maintain a balanced price.

The Korea Appraisal Board presented the appraisal example of land for similar use in neighboring areas, neighboring sale and holding practices, and the standard data of neighboring land prices, and the market price of neighboring similar land in competition and substitute for this case and neighboring land is higher than the officially announced land price. In light of the neighboring appraisal precedents of the real estate in question, neighboring market prices, etc., the Korea Appraisal Board revised the difference in the real price level as other factors, and applied 1.70 amended values in general commercial areas and 1.30 amended values in quasi-residential areas without specific grounds for calculation.

▸재감정기관에서 기타요인 보정치의 산정근거로 삼은 ○○동 000-50 토지와 000-21 토지에 비하여 이 사건 표준지가 70%만큼 우세하다고 볼 근거가 있는지

- It does not mean that 70% of the reference land of this case is superior to the land of this case, which reflects as a correction of other factors, is 70% of the reference land of this case. The amendment of other factors is made in the case where there is a gap between the officially announced price of the reference land and the normal transaction price level

○ As to the instant building

▸이 사건 건물의 내용연수를 50년으로 보는 것이 적정한지

- Although the useful life of a building is different depending on the structure, user materials, material quality, construction condition, and management and use condition, the useful life of a reinforced concrete structure sloping roof (stores and commercial buildings) is over 45 to 55 years. Since the instant building is a reinforced concrete slab roof, deeming the useful life to be 50 years is appropriate.

▸이 사건 건물의 경과연수를 30년 또는 20년으로 계산한 것이 적정한지

- A building appraisal method is the cost method. The cost method is the method of calculating the appraised value of the building being valued by seeking the repurchasing cost of the building as of the time of the evaluation and by modifying the depreciation.

The depreciation revision is based on the useful life. In general, a reduction in the annual period which deducts the actual number of years elapsed from the useful life according to the actual number of years elapsed. In addition, if the condition of a building is excellent due to the renovation, repair, etc. of a building, the condition of maintenance and management thereof is good, or if the condition of maintenance and management is poor, the number of years elapsed is higher than the actual number of years, based on the person’s judgment, or a sense of observation that makes the number of years elapsed more small, based on the physical, functional, and economic factors, may be adjusted. The original appraisal agency assessed the remaining years by applying 45 years to the actual number of years, 39 years, and the actual number of years elapsed, based on the 50 years of useful life and the status of the management of the building, and evaluated the remaining 20 years by applying 30 years to the effective number of years.

- Since re-appraisals are stated in the appraisal report that they had intended to observe values by taking into account the good condition of buildings and their management status, it cannot be readily concluded that they appraised based on the number of years elapsed mistakenly calculated. However, it is necessary for the re-appraisals to identify the reasons for applying the observation values.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10 through 18 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6 through 9 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination on the legality of evaluation by re-examination

(1) As to the conversion price of rent

(A) Relevant statutes

Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the value of inherited property shall be appraised according to the market price as of the commencement date of inheritance. Article 61 of the same Act provides that the method of appraisal of real estate shall be prescribed, and Article 61(5) provides that "in cases of an asset under a de facto lease contract, the value of the asset shall be the larger of the assessed value as prescribed by Presidential Decree on the basis of rent, etc., and the appraised value under the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (6)." According to Article 50(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, "value appraised as prescribed by Presidential Decree" (hereinafter referred to as "amount converted into rent") shall be calculated according to the formula

(B) The method of calculating "one-year rent";

The defendant claimed that the rent for 12 months has been calculated by multiplying the rent as of the commencement date of the inheritance by 12 months, and that the plaintiff should calculate the rent for 1 year on the basis of the rent received for 1 year before the commencement date of the inheritance.

(2) In addition, if the value of the inherited property is assessed based on the supplementary method stipulated in Article 61(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the appraised value cannot be levied as a result, because the appraised value falls short of the rental deposit obligation, etc. determined on the basis of the ordinary value, and thus, the amount of the inherited property can lead to the value of the inherited property most adjacent to the market price based on the rental deposit and rent, and thus, it accords with the principle of market value under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 98Hun-Ba92, Jun. 29, 200). (3) If the value of the inherited property is assessed based on the "rent received for one year prior to the commencement date of inheritance" under the provision of Article 61(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it is reasonable to view that the appraised value of the inherited property should, in principle, be assessed based on the rent calculated on the basis of the current rate of inheritance under Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

(C) Credit of management expenses

Article 50 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act refers to the price for the use and profit-making of the relevant real estate; in light of the fact that the expenses such as electricity charges, water supply charges, heating and cooling charges, cleaning expenses, cleaning expenses, and other management expenses to be paid by the lessee are determined at a fixed amount and collected on a monthly basis along with the rent at the time of the lease contract, the rent between the parties is deemed separate from the rent; and the amount is also determined by calculating the monthly rent in consideration of the maintenance expenses of the leased object, etc., even if the lessor has received the expenses for the maintenance of the leased building from the lessee as the management expenses (such as the cost for the maintenance of facilities, personnel expenses, waste collection charges, etc.), such expenses shall not be included in the rent when calculating the rent amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du1575, Dec. 10, 2004).

In the case of the case of this case, the plaintiffs should deduct management expenses from the rent under the lease contract, and the plaintiffs should deduct the management expenses from the rent. In the case of the HeH and the DoJ, where the management expenses under the lease contract are '0 won', the management expenses shall be calculated based on the "management expenses per square meter per square meter" divided by the total area of the lease. However, in calculating the conversion price of the rent for the real estate of this case, the defendant calculated based on pure rent except the management expenses specified in the contract, and the plaintiff and the deceased issued three tax invoices for the lessee separately receiving the management expenses in addition to the rent. However, the plaintiff and the deceased issued three tax invoices for the rent, management expenses, electricity, but only issued two tax invoices for the use of electricity, and the other tax invoices for the use of electricity, and the plaintiffs reported the sales amount of value-added tax as KRW 00 on February 1, 201, which is similar to the lease contract and the management expenses to the amount of KRW 600,000,000.

(d) Calculation of the conversion price of rent;

When calculating the converted value of the rent of the real estate in this case by excluding only management expenses entered in the lease contract based on the rent as of the commencement date of inheritance, 000 won is as follows:

◦1년간의 임대료: 000원 × 1/2 × 12개월 = 000원

◦(1년간의 임대료 ÷ 12%) + 임대보증금

0

0

(2) As to the requirement for re-appraisal

(A) The proviso of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "if the relevant appraised value falls short of the smaller of the value assessed under Articles 61, 62, and 65 of the Act and the value equivalent to 90/100 of the market value under paragraph (5) of the same Article, the said value shall be deemed the market value under Article 60(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act." In the application of the provision of paragraph (1), where there is a value falling under any of the subparagraphs of the same paragraph for other property whose area, location, purpose, issue, and standard market value are identical or similar to the relevant property, the said value shall be deemed the market value under paragraph (5) of the same Article." In light of such legal provisions, the said value shall be confirmed based on rent, etc. and the value assessed based on Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (in the case of an asset whose de facto lease contract is concluded or registered, the value assessed based on the rent shall not be the corresponding value assessed under Article 16(6).

(B) If the instant real estate is assessed on the Ministry of Health and Welfare pursuant to Article 61(1)1 and 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and Article 61(1)2 of the National Tax Service’s method of calculating the standard market price of the building of the National Tax Service (Notice by the National Tax Service, No. 2010-38, Dec. 29, 2010), it is assessed on the Ministry of Health and Welfare as follows: 00 won: (i) (00 won in the instant land + 1/200 in the instant building) x 00 won; and (ii) the converted rent is 00 won in the amount higher than the converted rent pursuant to Article 61(5) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Furthermore, the converted rent amount should be compared with the converted rent amount pursuant to the proviso of Article 49(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. There is no similar case in this case,

The appraisal of the land of this case shall be made.

◦(000원 × 000㎡) + (000원 × 000㎡) + (000원 × 000㎡) + (000원 × 000㎡) = 000원

Evaluation of the building of this case

◦기준시가 = ㎡당 금액 × 평가대상 건물의 면적(㎡)

◦㎡당 금액 = 건물신축가격기준액 × 구조지수 × 용도지수 × 위치지수 × 경과연수별 잔가율 × 개별건물의 특성에 따른 조정률

◦이 사건 건물의 ㎡당 금액: 000원(= 000원 × 100% × 90% × 130% × 0.220 × 100% × 100%)

◦이 사건 건물의 기준시가: 000원(= 000원 × 0,000.00㎡)

Therefore, 00 won, which is the original appraisal value, is less than 000 won for the conversion price of rent, so it constitutes the requirement for re-appraisal.

(C) On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that management expenses should be calculated per square meter and deducted from the rent, as the fee is included in the rent of the UNH and the ICJ. As the Plaintiff’s assertion, if management is calculated and deducted from the rent of the UNH and the ICJ, it would be KRW 000 as follows, and this amount is more than the original appraisal value. Therefore, the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements for re-appraisal.

◦유HH, 권JJ를 제외한 전체 임대차 면적: 0,000㎡(= 000㎡ + 00㎡ + 000㎡ + 000㎡ + 00㎡ + 000㎡ + 000㎡)

◦㎡당 관리비: 000원/㎡(= 000원/0,000㎡)

◦유HH에 대한 관리비: 000원(= 0,000원 × 00.00㎡)

Management expenses for the JJ: 000 won (=0,000 square meters x 000 square meters)

⇨유HH의 순수 임대료: 000원(= 000원 - 000원)

pure rent of JJ: 000 won (=000 won -000 won)

◦총 임대료: 000원(= 000원 - 000원- 000원)

◦1년간의 임대료: 000원 × 1/2 × 12개월 = 000원

The conversion price of rent: (1 year rent ¡À 12%) + Rental deposit;

0

0

* Calculation by rounding below the decimal point

E. Determination on the legality of the amount of re-appraisal

Considering the following circumstances, the re-appraisal value cannot be deemed unlawful, and thus, the re-appraisal value is lawful.

(1) Respect for the result of appraisal: As long as the method of appraisal, etc. is contrary to the rule of experience or unreasonable, etc., the result of appraisal by an appraiser shall be respected unless there exists a remarkable fault, such as that the method of appraisal, etc. is contrary to the rule of experience or unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da93790

② Compliance with appraisal procedures, etc.: Pursuant to delegation by Article 31 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 12, 2013; hereinafter “Appraisal Act”), the rules of appraisal provide for the principles and standards to be observed at the time of real estate appraisal. Specifically, an appraisal shall verify an object through an on-site investigation (Article 6(1)); the purpose, conditions of appraisal; the timing and period of appraisal; the date and time of appraisal; the date of appraisal; the appraisal; the details of the object; the assessment; the basis and date of appraisal; the opinion on the determination of the object list; the basis and method of determination of the appraised value; the method and method of calculation; the selection of comparative standard sites; the details of comparative standards and the land subject to appraisal; the method and details of appraisal; the basis and contents of appraisal if a building is modified; and other factors, the GG and the Korea Appraisal Board followed such procedures (Article 9);

(3) Calculation of the gap in individual factors: According to Article 17(1) of the Appraisal Regulations, when the appraisal of land is conducted, "other matters" shall be comprehensively taken into account from the officially announced price of the standard land to the price rate, other than the rate of price increase, based on the officially announced land price of the standard land until the price increase rate, and "other matters" shall include "other factors, etc. affecting land prices."

Accordingly, GG and the Korea Appraisal Board selected land as a comparative standard site and determined the officially announced price of the reference land at the time of pricing, which is deemed to be the most similar to the land at the time of pricing, based on the officially announced price of the reference land. However, EE and FF determined the unit price and the land price per square meter in comparison with the land area, 00-3, which is the comparison standard for the general commercial area part of the instant land, compared with the land area, 00-3, 00,000,000 square meters from the basic date to the date of pricing, regional factors, individual factors, etc. The EE and FF determined that the land of this case was somewhat different from the land area, 00-3,000-3, and all EE, F, GG and the Korea Appraisal Board assessed that the land of this case is equal to the land of this case, 000-3,000-1, 000-3, 10-7, 10-7, 307.

Although there is a different view on the comparison of individual factors such as the results of the appraisal by the original appraisal agency and the re-appraisaling agency, there is a difference between the appraisal theory and the appraisal experience, and each appraiser's judgment based on expertise, and so long as the appraiser is described to such extent as to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able and able to be able to be able to able to able to be able..

(4) The calculation of the gap between other factors: The appraisal practice shall assess the difference between the officially announced price of the standard land as of the time of pricing and the normal transaction price level in neighboring areas based on the "other matters under Article 17 (1) of the Appraisal and Assessment Regulations", if there is a reasonable ground for correction that cannot be reflected due to the comparison of regional or individual factors, such as the difference between the officially announced

Accordingly, the EE, FF, GG, and Korea Appraisal Board's appraisal precedents and appraisal precedents are analyzed and calculated the rate of difference between other factors, which is determined to have reasonable comparability, such as the geographical distance between comparative standard and the appraisal precedents, and EE, F and F do not expressly state which one of them was selected in a large number of sales cases or appraisal precedents, and how other factors were calculated. However, the GG and the Korea Appraisal Board expressed the process of calculating the difference of other factors (However, the Korea Appraisal Board, rather than the appraisal report, presented its opinion (Evidence 9) in this case, has expressed the basis for calculating the difference of other factors. It is difficult to 0 GG and the Korea Appraisal Board to view that there is no other factors that are similar to those of the G-G appraisal base at the time of sale or appraisal to the point of time of sale or appraisal, and thus, it is difficult to view that there is no other factors to consider the difference of price of the same specific use area, street conditions, environmental conditions, geographical factors, administrative conditions, and other individual appraisal factors within the G-G standard.

(5) A method of provisional adjustment: According to Articles 11 and 18 of the Appraisal Regulations, an appraisal of a building shall be based on the cost method of the building (referring to a method of calculating the current price of the object by adding or adjusting the price of the object to its cost at the time of price, see Article 4 subparagraph 3 of the same Article, referring to an appropriate cost to be sought by deeming the existing real estate to be newly constructed or created at the time of price), and an appraisal of a building shall be based on the appropriate method among the fixed amount method, the fixed rate method, the fixed rate method, or the Redemption Fund Act that provides the useful life at the time of provisional adjustment, and if the cumulative reduction of the object calculated by such method is not appropriate, other methods, such as the method of provisional adjustment, may be used

GG and the Korea Appraisal Board determines the quantity of the building of this case by comprehensively taking into account the size and utilization status of the building of this case, maintenance status, finishing materials, surrounding environment, existence of elevators, etc. Accordingly, applying the observation depreciation method to adjust the lifespan and remaining years of the building of this case. As a result, the reduction of provisional adjustment based on the lifespan continues to maintain the usefulness of the subject real estate and calculated the expected use period during which economic profits are generated, it is assumed that a certain amount of the annual amount of economic profits are reduced according to the calculated usage period, there is a concern that the actual depreciation of each individual real estate is not in accord with each individual real estate. However, the observation depreciation method is a method of directly seeking the value of the building by observing the actual conditions such as the design, equipment, etc. of the subject building of this case, the difference between the lifespan and remaining lifespan does not necessarily coincide with the actual number of years, and thus, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as an increase in the number of years during which the physical appraisal method of the subject building of this case can not be seen as unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.