Appropriateness of the assertion that the officially assessed individual land price was excessively calculated

The determination of the price cannot be deemed unlawful solely on the ground that there is a difference between the market price and the individual land price. As such, no assertion was made as to what mistake occurred in the selection of a comparative standard. Thus, the price determination of the individual land price cannot be deemed unlawful.

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

Article 99 (Assessment of Standard Market Price)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on November 13, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 3, 2006, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred ○○○○-ri 184-46 and two parcels of land (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by it to the Korea Land Corporation; and (b) received the price (851,472,66) around that time; (c) on February 22, 2006, the Plaintiff reported and paid the instant land by applying the officially assessed land price in 2005 (○○○-46, 47) for the land of this case (307,000, 169,000 per square meter for the land of ○○-ri 184-48) to the Korea Land Corporation; and (d) on February 22, 2006, the Plaintiff reported and paid the amount of transfer (537,690,000 won per square meter for the land of this case).

B. On October 16, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the tax base and tax amount to the Defendant for correction of the capital gains tax amount of the instant land amount of KRW 62,344,080 calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price in 2004. However, on November 13, 2006, the Defendant rendered a disposition rejecting correction against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, but was dismissed on March 21, 2007.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The officially assessed individual land price in 2005, which was the basis for calculating the amount of capital gains tax on the land of this case, shall be determined arbitrarily by anticipated subsequent increase in land prices, even though there was almost no land price increase due to trade, etc. since the designation as a housing site development zone on February 15, 2004. As such, the capital gains tax on the transfer of the land of this case shall not be the officially assessed individual land price in 2005, but be assessed based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2004. Accordingly, the disposition

(b) Related statutes;

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price of Income Tax of the Gu)

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

C. Determination

(1) Articles 96(2) and 99(1) of the former Income Tax Act provide that when assets subject to transfer income tax are transferred until December 31, 2006, the standard market price shall be based on the "standard market price at the time of transfer of the assets in question" but such standard market price shall be based on the "individual land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act". Thus, in order to calculate the transfer price of the land in this case transferred before December 31, 2006, the officially assessed land price in 2006 at the time of transfer of the land in this case ( January 3, 2006) shall be based on the publicly announced individual land price in 206 (Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act). However, according to Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, the standard market price shall be calculated based on the immediately preceding individual land price in 2005, which is the standard market price in this case.

(2) However, the legitimacy of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price is, in principle, determined based on the procedures and methods stipulated in the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act and the guidelines for the investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price, and it is not directly related to the market price of the pertinent land. Thus, even if the price of the individual land is different from the market price or is determined differently from the change, the determination of the price cannot be deemed unlawful merely for such reasons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13056, Jul. 12, 196). In this case without any assertion as to the fact that there was any error in the selection of the comparison standard or the process of determining the price ratio with respect to the pertinent land, the determination of the officially assessed individual land price cannot be deemed unlawful

(3) In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the officially assessed land price in 2005, which was the basis of the officially assessed land price, was excessively determined and that the officially assessed land price in this case was unfairly determined. However, in order to raise an objection to the officially assessed land price of the land selected as the reference land, an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the determination of the officially assessed land price should be filed following the procedure of objection under Article 8(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act, and the illegality of the officially assessed land price can not be asserted in a tax lawsuit without going through such procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1648, Nov. 10, 195). Thus, even if there is a defect in the calculation of the officially assessed land price of the reference land as alleged by the Plaintiff, such defect cannot

(4) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and the Defendant’s instant disposition that calculated the transfer income tax of the instant land based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2005 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.