Seoul High Court 2012Nu5949 (27 December 2012)

Seocho 2010Ch2413 (Law No. 9.20, 2010)

In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of calculating the amount of property tax deducted from the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax (Reversal and return)

The amount of property tax deducted according to the formula in the Enforcement Decree of this case 】 (Public notice price - the standard amount of taxation) 】 the smaller of the fair market price ratio of property tax and comprehensive real estate holding tax 】 Property tax rate 】 (Reversal and transmission).

Article 9 of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act

2012du195333 Revocation of revocation of revocation of rectification

○ Stock Company

○ Head of tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu5949 Decided September 27, 2012

oly 2015 07 09

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Articles 9(3) and 14(3) and (6) of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) stipulate that the tax amount imposed as property tax on a house subject to comprehensive real estate tax, etc. shall be deducted from the amount of comprehensive real estate tax on the house subject to taxation, the amount of comprehensive real estate tax on the land subject to taxation, and the amount of special aggregate tax on the land subject to taxation (hereinafter referred to as “amount of comprehensive real estate tax on the house, etc.”) respectively. Articles 4-2 and 5-3(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22813, Mar. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be determined in the formula of property tax on the house, etc. 】 the amount imposed as property tax on the aggregate of the amounts of property tax on the house, etc. calculated according to the standard tax rate (hereinafter referred to the property tax rate.).

2. On December 15, 2009, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, voluntarily reported and paid ○○○○○○○○○ and special rural development tax in 2009 on the land of ○○○○○○○○○ and other ○○○○○○○○○○○, Seoul, ○○○○○○, and other ○○○○○, Seoul, ○○○○, and the Defendant’s claim for the correction of the attached Form No. 3 of Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 102 of September 23, 2009) to the Defendant on December 15, 209, based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the excess amount of the officially announced real estate price x the fair market value x the fair market value x the property tax rate x the property tax rate x the Plaintiff’s claim for the correction of the instant property tax.

3. However, in light of the developments and purport of the amendment of the Local Tax Act, the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act, and the Enforcement Decree thereof on the assessment of tax base of the comprehensive real estate holding tax based on the public notice price and the fair market price rate system, property tax to be deducted according to the formula in the Enforcement Decree of the instant case x property tax x property tax rate 】 (public notice price - tax base amount) x property tax rate x property tax rate x in cases of comprehensive real estate holding tax in 209 where the fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax is less than the fair market price ratio of the comprehensive real estate holding tax or in cases of the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 209, property tax amount to be deducted from the amount of the comprehensive real estate holding tax, such as

In addition, Article 16(3) of the former Gross Real Estate Tax Act and Article 8(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Gross Real Estate Tax Act entrust the Enforcement Rule to determine the procedural matters for reporting the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, and do not delegate to determine the substantive matters related to the calculation of the amount of the property tax deducted from the amount of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax. Thus, Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Rule provides for the form for reporting the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, which is erroneous in the formula of the instant Enforcement Rule, in the attached Form 3 (2). However, even if Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Rule provides for the form for reporting the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, it shall be deemed that there is no effect of binding on the general public or the court (see

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, that it was lawful for the Defendant to calculate the amount of property tax deducted in accordance with the instant Enforcement Rule. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the method of calculating the amount of property tax deducted from the amount of comprehensive real estate holding tax. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.