(a) Whether the officially announced value of land selected as the reference land can be contested in a tax lawsuit;

B. Whether Article 11(2) of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act (amended by the Constitutional Court’s decision of inconsistency with the Constitution) can be applied retroactively

A. In order to raise an objection against the officially announced land price of the land selected as the reference land, the Minister of Construction and Transportation shall file an administrative litigation to seek revocation of the determination of the officially announced land price of the land after going through the procedures for an objection under Article 8(1) of the Public Notice of Values Act, and the illegality of the officially announced land price of the reference land shall not be asserted in a tax

B. The Constitutional Court ruled on July 29, 1994 that the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994) does not conform with the Constitution, and pointed out that the provisions of Articles 11 and 12 (Tax Base) of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994) are unconstitutional or do not conform to the Constitution. Accordingly, the National Assembly revised each of the above provisions by Act No. 4807, Dec. 22, 1994, while it newly established the provisions of Article 11-2 (Basic Deduction) and revised that "the standard market price of the land at the end of the taxable period under paragraph (1) shall be based on the standard market price of the land on January 1 of the year following the end of the taxable period (the above provisions of Article 11 (2) shall be interpreted equally before the amendment).

(a) Articles 4(1), 8(1), and 10(b) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act; Article 11(2) of the former Land Excess Profits and Appraisal Act (amended by Act No. 4807, Nov. 22, 1994); Article 11(2) of the Land Excess Profits and Appraisal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5083 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1203) (Gong195Sang, 511), 94Nu12920 delivered on March 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1762), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu20402 delivered on July 28, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2963), 93Nu10101 delivered on October 13, 1995, 93Nu2548 delivered on October 13, 195 (Gong195Ha, 38294 delivered on April 29, 297)

[Judgment of the court below]

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu16746 delivered on June 16, 1993

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

1. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

A. As to the second ground for appeal

In light of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and records, the court below's decision that the price of individual land stated in the annexed list 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the judgment below is legitimate because the price of individual land is determined by the method of price calculation stipulated in the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc.") and the Guidelines for Joint Investigation of Land Price of the same Land (the Prime Minister's Directive No. 248 of March 29, 191) is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against

On the other hand, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the rate of increase is too high, when the individual land price of the land listed in the Attachment List No. 4 is deemed lawful on the same ground as the determination of the above land No. 1, 2, 3, and 5, and the price of the land listed in the Attachment List No. 4, compared with the individual land price of the neighboring land or the price increase rate of the land price according to the grade of the land.

However, according to the facts and records established by the court below, the above 4 land is a land selected as the standard land price and can be known that the individual land price is the officially announced land price. In order to object to the officially announced land price of the land selected as the standard land price, an administrative litigation shall be filed against the Minister of Construction and Transportation, who is the disposition agency, by going through the procedures for an objection under Article 8 (1) of the Land Price Disclosure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10828, Mar. 8, 1994; Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5083, Dec. 13, 1994; 94Nu12920, Mar. 28, 1995). Thus, the illegality of the officially announced land price of the standard land in the tax litigation cannot be asserted without going through such procedures. Thus, in the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of the imposition of the publicly announced land price of the standard land for the above 4th land.

The reasoning of the lower court is different, but it is justifiable in its conclusion rejecting the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land price decision as stated in the 4th above was unlawful.In conclusion, all arguments are without merit.

B. As to the first and third points

In the decision of 92Hun-Ba49,52 on July 29, 1994, the Constitutional Court ruled that the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) does not conform with the Constitution, and pointed out that the provisions of Articles 11 and 12 (Tax Base) of the former Local Tax Act are unconstitutional or are not inconsistent with the Constitution. Accordingly, the National Assembly revised each of the above provisions by Act No. 4807 of Dec. 22, 1994, while it newly established the provisions of Article 11-2 (Basic Deduction). Article 11(2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that "the standard market price of the land at the end of the taxable period under paragraph (1) shall be determined by the standard market price of land on January 1 of the year following the end of the taxable period (the above provisions of Article 11(2) shall be interpreted equally before the amendment).

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument on the premise that Article 11 of the former Local Tax Act is applied as it is before the amendment.

2. However, as seen earlier, Articles 11, 11-2, and 12 of the amended Elementary and Secondary Tax Act shall apply to the tax base and tax rate for the scheduled period of the instant decision, as seen earlier. However, the lower court’s judgment that deemed the instant disposition lawful by imposing and assessing the tax amount calculated by applying the relevant provisions of the former Elementary and Secondary Tax Act, which affected the application of the relevant laws and regulations on the tax base and tax rate, was erroneous, and thus, it cannot be reversed in this respect.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed ex officio, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)