Busan Tourist Hotel Co., Ltd. (Law Firm KCEL, Attorneys Choi Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Law Firm Han-ro, Attorneys Hai-ro, Counsel for defendant)

December 4, 2012

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2010Guhap1354 decided April 14, 2011

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On October 10, 2006, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of the registration tax of KRW 185,047,460 against the Plaintiff and the local education tax of KRW 34,068,020 is null and void.

The Defendant’s imposition of acquisition tax of 940,024,50 won on November 10, 2009 and special rural development tax of 61,505,270 won shall be revoked.

Ⅰ. Registration tax and acquisition tax;

The following facts are either not disputed between the parties, or recognized by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 12 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 26, 29, 48 through 50, 54, 55, and 57 (including paper numbers) as a whole.

[1]

○○ The Non-Party 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) of the deceased Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) was the Plaintiff’s representative director even at the time of death, who was the owner of the 3,173m2 (number 2 omitted) Seodong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant land”).

○○ Deceased was in a family relationship with the Plaintiff’s shareholders and family relations, and was in a family relationship with Nonparty 2 and its shareholders, the representative director of the original Jinnaz (hereinafter “original Jinnaz”).

○ The same land as the land in this case (number 3 omitted), the land (number 4 omitted), the land (number 4 omitted), the land (number 5 omitted), the land (number 5 omitted) is used as the site for the trisan Tourist Hotel and related facilities owned and operated by the Plaintiff, and the land (number 6 omitted) is used as the parking lot site, respectively.

Pursuant to Articles 112-2(1) and 112(2)4(1) of the Local Tax Act, the 310.87 square meters of the land in this case, which is the land annexed to the high-class recreation center in this case and is subject to acquisition tax (hereinafter “instant high-class recreation center”). The 310.87 square meters of the land in this case, which is the land annexed to the high-class recreation center in this case under Article 84-3(4)5(a)(ii) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

[2]

○ On June 2, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Won Jinz on the ground of the donation from May 30, 2003 on the instant land. The registration of ownership transfer was revoked on February 2, 2005 by filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the above transfer of ownership on the ground that there was no donation by the deceased, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon receiving a favorable judgment in favor of the deceased.

On May 3, 2005, the Deceased entered into a private donation contract (No. 2) with the Plaintiff to donate the instant land on a private basis, and died on May 20, 2005. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on March 30, 2006 on the instant land on the ground of private donation.

[3]

around March 2006, the Plaintiff reported and paid the registration tax according to 8/1,000 applicable to the acquisition of ownership due to inheritance, based on the assessment standard of the land of this case as the assessment value, and the tax rate is 8/1,00.

○ On October 10, 2006, the Defendant imposed the registration tax of KRW 185,047,460 and the local education tax of KRW 34,068,020 on the Plaintiff, setting the tax base of the instant land as the current base price and at 15/1,00 of the tax rate applied to the acquisition of ownership without any consideration, other than inheritance (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing the registration tax”).

○ Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the unpaid registration tax and local education tax and additional tax on February 28, 2007.

○ On May 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the imposition of the registration tax of this case, but was dismissed on the ground that the period of appeal was exceeded.

[4]

○ Meanwhile, around April 10, 2006, the Defendant imposed the first disposition on the Plaintiff on the ground that the cause of acquiring the instant land was a private donation and the tax base was 20,085,723,000 won based on the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2005 (hereinafter “the first disposition”), and revoked the first disposition on the ground of mistake in tax base on September 29, 2006.

○ On July 10, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing acquisition tax and special rural development tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of donation of the cause of acquiring the instant land (hereinafter “second disposition”) and revoked the second disposition ex officio on November 2, 2007 on the ground of non-delivery of notice.

○ On November 10, 2007, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing acquisition tax and special rural development tax on the Plaintiff on the ground of donation of the cause of acquiring the instant land (hereinafter “third disposition”), but revoked the third disposition ex officio on the ground of failure to serve a notice on February 26, 2008.

○ On March 10, 2008, the Defendant: (a) donated the cause of acquiring the instant land to the Plaintiff on May 30, 2003; (b) the tax base was KRW 11,518,33,00 based on the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2003; (c) acquisition tax on the instant land was KRW 276,440,470 (= principal tax + KRW 230,367,060 + additional tax + KRW 46,073,410); (d) special rural development tax was 25,340,370 (principal tax + KRW 23,036,70 + additional tax KRW 2,303,670); and (d) additional tax was 113,419,406,400; and (e) additional tax was 2636,406,2964,2966,2846,6366,464, etc.

On May 28, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the fourth disposition, and the Defendant revoked part of the acquisition tax (additional payment from May 20, 2005 to June 19, 2005, which is the 30th day of acquisition tax payment under the Local Tax Act) ex officio with respect to the acquisition tax.

[5]

○ On November 10, 2009, the Defendant: (a) made the Plaintiff the cause of acquiring the instant land as a private donation; (b) made the tax base of the instant land at KRW 11,518,33,00 based on the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2003; and (c) KRW 20,085,723,00 based on the publicly assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004; (b) KRW 8,567,370,00; (c) KRW 398,921,870 as to the instant land (i) KRW 171,347,400 + KRW 34,269,480 + KRW 193,480 as of additional tax; (d) KRW 193,84,470 as of additional tax; and (e) KRW 165,361,475,714,717,47,7517

○ 40,024,50 won in total (i.e., 389,559,910 won in the fourth disposition + 550,464,590 won in the fifth disposition) and special rural development tax amount: 61,505,270 won in total (i.e., 4th disposition + 35,709,650 won in the fourth disposition + 25,795,620 won in the fifth disposition) (i.e., hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”) (i., referring to 4th disposition and 5th disposition).

Ⅱ The disposition imposing the registration tax of this case

The plaintiff asserts that the imposition of the registration tax of this case is illegal, and sought nullification thereof.

1. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 562 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "Inheritance Tax Act") provides that legacy and private gifts shall be included in inheritance, and Article 562 of the Civil Act provides that testamentary gifts shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of private donation, and the precedents also regard that the substantial effect of private donation and testamentary gift is the same, and the shareholders of the plaintiff shall be the inheritors of the deceased.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land through private donation constitutes “acquisition of ownership by inheritance” under Article 131(1)2 of the Local Tax Act, not “acquisition by free,” but “acquisition by inheritance” under Article 131(1)10 of the Local Tax Act, and its tax rate should be 8/1,000, but the Defendant imposed the registration tax of this case at the tax rate of 15/1,000. This is null and void.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since the donation of the instant land by private person is not “Inheritance” but “acquisition of ownership without compensation,” the registration tax rate is 15/1,000. Therefore, the disposition of imposition of the instant registration tax is lawful.

2. Determination

In terms of the grammatic interpretation of Article 131(1)1 and 2, and Article 105(9)1 of the Local Tax Act, donation of private person is interpreted as "acquisition of ownership without compensation" under Article 131(1)2.

Article 562 of the Civil Act provides that the provision of testamentary gift shall apply mutatis mutandis to a donation by a private person. Thus, even if the provision of testamentary gift is applicable mutatis mutandis, it does not go against the nature of the gift by a private person. Articles 1065 through 1072 of the Civil Act concerning the method of testamentary gift is not applicable mutatis mutandis. Article 1078 of the Civil Act regarding the method of testamentary gift provides that the universal testamentary gift shall have the same effect as that of inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da6430, 66447, Sept. 14, 2001; 94Da3714, 37721, Apr. 12, 1996).

Article 105 (9) of the Local Tax Act on the obligation to pay acquisition tax provides that the term “a testamentary gift and universal legacy to an inheritor” includes a testamentary gift and testamentary gift to an inheritor as an inheritance. In interpreting Article 131 (1) 1 and 2 of the Local Tax Act on the “tax rate” of the “registration tax,” the meaning of Article 131 (1) 1 and 2 of the Local Tax Act cannot be interpreted to include a testamentary gift, which is not a testamentary gift, as a matter of course, in violation of the language interpretation as seen earlier.

Thus, a private donation is interpreted as "acquisition of ownership without compensation" under Article 131 (1) 2 of the Local Tax Act, and the tax rate of 15/1,000 shall apply at the time of imposition of registration tax. Therefore, the imposition of registration tax in this case is legitimate. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is groundless.

Ⅲ. Disposition imposing acquisition tax of this case

The Plaintiff asserts that the disposition imposing the acquisition tax of this case is illegal and seeks its revocation.

1. Principle of good faith:

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the defendant has superior authority to conduct a field investigation, he/she has cancelled or changed the disposition of acquisition tax, etc. on several occasions on the grounds that there was an error in applying the tax base, etc., which cannot be viewed as a performance of duty due to good faith, and thus is in violation of the principle of good faith. Therefore, the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of this case,

Even if not, in light of the circumstances leading up to the disposition of acquisition tax in this case, revocation or change of the disposition of acquisition tax, etc. on several occasions is caused by a cause attributable to the defendant, and thus, there is a justifiable reason not to mislead the defendant into the failure to pay acquisition tax. Thus, the part of the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax in this case is unlawful

B. Determination

(1) Examining the evidence as mentioned above and the relevant laws and regulations, as follows.

In the event of an illegality in the disposition, the tax authority may cancel the disposition ex officio and make a legitimate disposition.

In the case of acquisition tax, a taxpayer is obligated to pay taxes within the period for return and payment as prescribed by the Local Tax Act, but does not need separate disposition by the defendant. The defendant's act of cancelling a disposition of correction after the period for return and payment expires is not different from the existence of the Plaintiff's tax liability, the timing of payment, and the amount of tax to be paid.

Examining the circumstances and reasons of the first and fifth dispositions, the defendant, in addition to cancelling the first disposition by reason of error of the tax base, mainly the plaintiff's continued civil petition filing, written notice of imposition and collection, and repeated imposition and revocation of the acquisition tax, etc. on several occasions on the grounds of non-receiving.

As the Plaintiff asserts, even though the Defendant repeated the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax, etc. and the disposition of revocation several times and caused a somewhat confusion in the Plaintiff’s legitimate tax amount, unlike the Plaintiff’s early return and payment of registration tax, the Plaintiff did not pay most of the tax amount calculated by the tax calculation method as alleged by the Plaintiff himself/herself, from May 20, 2005 to the date of closing argument in the trial.

(2) According to the above circumstances, the Defendant’s disposition does not violate the principle of trust and good faith under Article 15 and Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which applies mutatis mutandis acquisition tax pursuant to Article 82 subparag. 15 of the Local Tax Act, solely on the grounds that the Defendant repeatedly imposed the disposition of imposition and the disposition of revocation on several occasions. Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any justifiable ground for failing to perform his/her duty to pay acquisition tax, etc. on the ground that there is a justifiable circumstance to suggest the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty to pay the acquisition tax, etc. of the instant land or there is a circumstance that can be deemed that the performance of his/her duty cannot

2. Principles on prohibition of disadvantageous alteration;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal concerning the fourth disposition, and the Tax Tribunal decided that the defendant revoked part of the additional payment for the erroneous payment for the reason that the defendant calculated the excessive amount of the additional payment for the erroneous payment for the reason that he erroneously obtained the time of acquisition of the land of this case.

However, the defendant issued five separate dispositions imposing additional acquisition tax, etc. on the difference between the current base value at the time of May 20, 2005 and the current base value at the time of May 2003, 2003, which had not been included in the decision made by the Tax Tribunal. This violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, which is stipulated in Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which applies mutatis mutandis to acquisition tax pursuant to Article 82 Section 17 of the Local Tax Act, and therefore, the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax in this case, including illegal five separate dispositions, is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Article 79(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that Article 79(2) of the same Act provides that no decision unfavorable to the claimant shall be made in making a decision on the request for a trial, which is dissatisfied with the taxation disposition. This provision applies mutatis mutandis to the decision on the request for a review under the Framework Act on National Taxes. This provision applies to cases where the contents of the order for a review are more unfavorable to the claimant than those of the taxation disposition subject to the request for a review, and this provision does not apply to cases where the tax authority determines the tax base or tax amount with omissions or errors based on the details revealed in the reasons for the review (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Du1067

(2) The following are examined in light of the overall purport of the evidence duly admitted.

In a case where the Tax Tribunal erroneously calculated the period of additional payment on acquisition tax as to the plaintiff's request for the fourth disposition, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that "from March 10, 2008 to June 19, 2005, the period from May 30, 2003 to June 10, 2005 is excluded from the application of additional payment, and thus, the amount of tax shall be corrected." As a result, this decision is more favorable to the plaintiff, because the additional tax to be paid by the plaintiff is reduced than the amount of the fourth disposition.

In the above decision, the Tax Tribunal pointed out that the time when the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on May 20, 2005, which is the death date of the deceased. Thus, it was erroneous to deem that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case by the donation from May 30, 2003, and that the fourth disposition was made. The defendant corrected the error in accordance with the above decision, and deemed the plaintiff's acquisition date to be " May 20, 2005," and made a new calculation of the tax base of the land of this case and the fiveth disposition. Thus, the fiveth disposition is not subject to the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 79 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

(3) If so, the disposition imposing the acquisition tax of this case cannot be deemed to violate the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Payment period; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the period of return and payment under Article 120(1) of the Local Tax Act is within six months from the commencement date of the inheritance, the defendant should impose penalty tax from the next day. However, the defendant imposed penalty tax from the 30th day following the commencement date of the inheritance of the deceased, which is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Article 120(1) of the Local Tax Act provides, in principle, 30 days with regard to the deadline for filing a return of acquisition tax; however, “cases due to inheritance” shall be six months from the date of commencing the inheritance. It is reasonable to deem that the period for filing a return for six months is recognized only for a person who acquires an object of taxation of acquisition tax due to inheritance, i.e., inheritance., the period for filing a return for six months.

(2) However, as in the general donation contract, a private donation takes effect upon the death of a donor. As such, where a donee acquires a taxable object through a private donation, it is reasonable to deem that the donee acquires the taxable object at the time of the death of the donor, and the donee cannot be deemed to have acquired the taxable object due to an inheritance.

On the other hand, in the case of inheritance, it seems that the period of six-month reporting and payment is particularly stipulated in the case of inheritance, taking into account the fact that the procedures such as the period of refusal of inheritance or the period of qualified acceptance are being followed.

(3) In light of the above circumstances, when considering the principle of no taxation without law and strict interpretation, it is reasonable to deem that the period for reporting and paying acquisition tax under Article 120(1) of the Local Tax Act in the case of private donation is 30 days from the date of acquisition. Thus, the Defendant’s imposition of additional tax on acquisition tax from June 20, 205, the day following the date when the death of the deceased was 30 days from May 20, 2005, is lawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Individual land price;

A. The plaintiff and defendant's assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The land in this case is used as the main entrance, mail and parking lot of the Samsan Tourist Hotel, and 355 square meters out of the ground of the land in this case is used as the underground 1,200 square meters of Samsan Tourist Hotel, and there is a legal surface equivalent to 147.6 square meters in the end of the north side of the land in this case, and there is a legal surface equivalent to 147.6 square meters in the end of the north side of the land in this case.

Therefore, in view of the fact that the land use of the instant land and its surrounding land, including the instant land (number omitted), are limited as above, it is unlawful to calculate a single individual land price by deeming it as a group of land with other land and to calculate a single individual land price, and it is also unlawful to calculate the individual land price without taking into account the situation in which land use is restricted due to the ground building.

However, the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land on January 1, 2004, without properly reflecting “the conditions of land use” or “the conditions of restrictions on the use of individual land” in the reference land (number 7 omitted) and “the conditions of land use” in the instant land as well as “the conditions of land use” or “the conditions of restrictions on the use of individual land” in the instant land, there are procedural defects in the calculation of a single individual individual land price without considering the situation where land use is restricted due to a building on the surrounding land, and there is a substantial unreasonable reason for the calculation of the △△△△△ to be considerably higher than the appraised appraised value of the re-determined appraisal corporation by reflecting the aforementioned conditions

Therefore, the officially assessed individual land price of January 1, 2004 of the instant land is unlawful, and the imposition of the acquisition tax of this case, which calculated the tax base based on the illegally assessed individual land price, is also unlawful.

(2) The defendant's assertion

According to the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act (hereinafter “Price Public Notice Act”), the Plaintiff did not file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation within 30 days from the date of the determination or public notice regarding the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land within 90 days from the date of the determination or public notice, and the Plaintiff did not file an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of delivery of the original written adjudication on administrative appeal, thereby resulting in a lack of dispute regarding the determination of the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot claim the illegality of imposing acquisition tax of the instant land, which is a subsequent disposition, on the ground of the defect in the decision on the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land.

(b) Tax base;

(1) Article 111 of the Local Tax Act, which was in force at the time of the deceased’s death, provides that the tax base of acquisition tax shall be the value at the time of acquisition, and Article 111(2) provides that the value at the time of the above acquisition shall be the value reported by the acquisitor, and that when there is no indication of the reported or reported value or the reported value is below the standard market value stipulated in the following subparagraphs, it shall be based on the standard market value. In Article 111(2)1 of the Local Tax Act, for the land and housing whose price is publicly notified by the Public Notice of Values Act, and for the land and housing whose price is publicly notified by the Public Notice of Values Act, if the publicly notified individual land price or individual housing price is not publicly notified, the head of the Si/Gun shall be the

In addition, Article 80-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the officially assessed individual land price or individual housing price as of the date of acquisition under the provisions of Article 111 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act, which was enforced at that time, shall be the officially assessed individual land price or individual housing price as of the date of acquisition, and if the officially assessed individual land price or individual housing price applicable to the year concerned as of the date of acquisition is not determined and

(2) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 45 and 46 as stated above.

○ The officially assessed individual land price of January 1, 2004 was KRW 6,330,000 per square meter.

On May 3, 2005, the Deceased entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for a private donation of the instant land, and on May 20, 2005, the Deceased died.

○ On May 31, 2005, the Defendant determined and publicly announced the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2005 with respect to the land of 32,136 parcels located in Gangnam-gu, including the instant land. The officially assessed individual land price of the instant land was KRW 7,070,000 per square meter.

○ The Plaintiff did not report the acquisition tax of the instant land.

(3) In addition to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff acquired the instant land due to the effect of private donation on May 20, 2005, where the deceased died on May 20, 2005, and the Plaintiff constitutes “where there is no indication of the reported or reported value” under Article 111(2) of the Local Tax Act on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land without compensation through private donation and did not report the acquisition tax of the instant land. Accordingly, the standard market price publicly announced by the Public Notice of Values Act under Article 111(2)1 of the same Act, i.e., the acquisition value by the publicly announced individual land price (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du240, Sept. 26, 2003, etc.).

However, since the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land as of January 1, 2005 was decided and publicly announced on May 31, 2005, which was after the effect of the said private donation occurred, it constitutes “when the publicly assessed individual land price or individual housing price applicable to the current year as of the acquisition date is not determined and publicly announced” under Article 80-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and therefore, the tax base of the instant land shall be based on the officially assessed individual land price (6,30,000 won per square meter) of January 1, 2004.

C. Succession to defects

(1) Where the preceding and subsequent dispositions are continuously conducted, the defects of the preceding dispositions are succeeded to the subsequent dispositions, but in other cases, where the two dispositions independently aim at a separate legal effect, in principle, if the preceding dispositions are unable to dispute the effects of the preceding dispositions due to the defect of the preceding dispositions, excluding cases where the defect of the preceding dispositions is so serious that they are null and void as the defect of the preceding dispositions is so serious that they cannot dispute the subsequent dispositions on the grounds of the defect of the preceding dispositions. In this case, even in this case, if the non-existence of the preceding dispositions or binding force exceeds the tolerance limit and the result is not predicted to the parties, it is reasonable to view that the binding force of the preceding dispositions cannot be recognized in light of the ideology of the Constitution guaranteeing the right of trial of the people. Thus, if the preceding dispositions are unlawful, it can be argued as an object of administrative litigation, and it can be argued as an independent ground for illegality in the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the subsequent dispositions (see Supreme Court Decisions 200Nu532984, Mar. 13, 19998; 2508Du197.

(2) Meanwhile, according to Articles 11(4) and 12(4) of the Public Notice of Values Act and Articles 18 and 20(25) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when calculating the price of individual land in order to determine and publicly announce the publicly announced individual land price, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall keep a land access ledger and post a notice of necessary matters on the bulletin board to hear the opinions of landowners and other interested parties (hereinafter “land owners, etc.”). When determining and publicly announcing the publicly announced individual land price, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall post necessary matters on the bulletin board of a Si/Gun/Gu (the matters concerning the determination of publicly announced individual land price and the filing of objections) and may notify the land owners, etc. of such fact if deemed necessary. Meanwhile, the landowner, etc. may file an objection against the publicly announced individual land price with respect to the individual land price related to himself/herself

(3) In full view of the above facts and relevant legal principles, the following are examined.

A disposition that the head of a Si/Gun/Gu determines and publicly announces the officially assessed individual land price under the Public Notice of Values Act, and a disposition that the local government imposes and collects the unpaid acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act because a person liable to pay acquisition tax fails to fulfill his/her duty to report or pay taxes is aimed at independent of each other, and it cannot be said that a disposition to impose and collect acquisition tax is void a year on the ground that there is an illegal ground for determining the officially assessed individual land price of the land

In the disposition of acquisition tax of this case, the plaintiff did not dispute between the parties in relation to the determination and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price of this case as of January 1, 2004, which is the basis for calculating the tax base, and the fact that the plaintiff did not file an objection, administrative appeal, or administrative litigation within the peremptory period prescribed by the Public Notice of Values Act, the Administrative Appeals Act, and the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, the plaintiff could no longer dispute the determination and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price of January 1, 2004, which is the preceding disposition by force or binding force.

According to the Public Notice Act, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall hear the opinions of landowners, etc. in the process of determining and publicly announcing the officially assessed individual land price and impose an obligation to post the determined individual land price on the bulletin board of the Si/Gun/Gu, but individual notice on landowners, etc. shall remain at the discretion of the head of a Si/Gun/

In relation to the determination and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, in the time of the determination and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004, the original Jinz did not present any opinion or did not raise any objection despite having given all notifications under the Public Notice of Values Act to the original Jinz, who was the owner of the land of this case. However, the Defendant’s written evidence No. 59 (including the land number) alone is insufficient to recognize that in relation to the determination and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004, the original Jinz or the deceased, who is the actual owner of the land of this case, at that time, notified the original Jinz by the latter part of the latter part of Article 20(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Public Notice of Values Act, it is difficult to view that the Defendant offered the remainder of the officially assessed individual land price as of this case to the original owner at that time.

A person acquiring the relevant land from the owner of an administrative agency can not have any opportunity prior to the acquisition of the relevant land by gathering various opinions, perusal of the land price, public announcement, posting, individual notification, etc. prior to the acquisition of the relevant land by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu under the Public Notice of Values Act. Therefore, it is practically impossible to object to the determination and public announcement of the officially assessed individual land price of the relevant land, which is the basis for calculating the tax base for acquisition tax to be borne by the acquisition of the relevant land, prior to the acquisition thereof. In particular, it is more so true if the

In addition, it is difficult to appeal against the officially assessed individual land price prior to the actual disadvantage due to the reporting and payment of acquisition tax by the purchaser or the imposition and collection of acquisition tax by the local government.

(4) In full view of the above circumstances, it is difficult to deem that: (a) considering the situation before and after the acquisition of the pertinent land by the owner of the relevant land, the person who acquired the said land without compensation would always demand the purchaser to correct the price of the relevant land through the prescribed procedure for correction if the determination of the officially assessed individual land price was erroneous; and (b) making it impossible to assert the illegality of the determination of the publicly assessed individual land price of the relevant land, which is the preceding disposition, in the subsequent disposition, such as the imposition and collection of acquisition tax, based on the illegally assessed individual land price, on the ground that it did not demand the purchaser to correct it through the prescribed procedure for correction; and (c) making it impossible to force the purchaser to suffer disadvantage exceeding the limit of tolerance; (d) thereby, it accords with the ideology

However, according to the above, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on May 20, 2005, which is the death date of the deceased according to private donation, and the acquisition tax base shall be based on the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004, which was decided and announced May 31, 2005. Thus, in the lawsuit of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition imposing the acquisition tax of this case, the plaintiff can assert the illegality of the above officially assessed individual land price decision as an independent reason for revocation. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(d) Appropriateness of the officially assessed individual land price;

(1) According to the Public Notice of Values Act, the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s Guidelines for investigating and calculating the officially assessed individual land price in 2004 (No. 64-1,30-32), the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined after conducting a land-specific survey (joint survey) on individual land, by calculating the price distribution rate on the table of land price ratification depending on the difference in the characteristics of the standard land and by multiplying it by the officially assessed land price of the standard land by the method of multiplying it by the difference in the characteristics of the standard land.

The legitimacy of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined by the procedure and method stipulated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and it is not directly related to the market price or actual transaction price of the relevant land. Thus, the determination of the officially assessed individual land price shall not be readily concluded as unlawful on the ground that the officially assessed land price exceeds the appraised price or actual transaction price (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du12080, Jul. 15, 2005).

If there is a defect in violation of major procedures in the process of determining individual land price, or the standard land price based on the selection of comparative standard land or the application of the price adjustment rate based on the comparison standard sheet, the characteristics of the land in question, or the application of the price adjustment rate, or there is an obvious fault in the price calculation due to the above-mentioned fault, the illegality of the determination of individual land price can be disputed. In such a case, whether the price of individual land is substantially unreasonable or unreasonable shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the developments leading up to the determination of the price, the developments leading up to the determination of the price, the rate of increase or decrease applied to the land characteristics for the same or similar neighboring land, the rate of increase or decrease of the standard land price and neighboring land characteristics applied to the same or similar neighboring land (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu17935, Jun. 25, 196).

On the other hand, in case where several parcels of land are indivisible for the purpose of use as a group, it is reasonable to regard the whole parcels of land as one parcel, and to evaluate the whole area at a single price after investigating the characteristics of land. Here, the term "case of indivisible relationship for the purpose of use" means a case where the situation in which a group of land is used as a group of land is deemed reasonable in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects and in terms of the formation of value of the relevant land (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Du1428, May 26, 2005; 9Du824, July 27, 2001, etc.).

(2) Examining the evidence and the evidence mentioned above in the above facts and the evidence set forth in Nos. 47 to 50, 59, 61, and 64 (including paper numbers) comprehensively based on the whole purport of the pleadings as follows.

C. Until the Plaintiff acquired the instant land as a private donation, the owner of the instant land and the building on the ground, third-party tourist hotel did not have the same number. Rather, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, leased the instant land in KRW 60,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 60,000, and KRW 600,000,00, which is the Plaintiff, was the owner of the instant land. As such, the legal superficies claimed by the Plaintiff could not be established originally, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff seeking removal of the instant land and delivery of the land to the Plaintiff after the termination of the lease relationship as a matter of course constitutes abuse of rights. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the use of the instant land by the deceased was limited on the ground that the building on the instant land owned by the Plaintiff was

(1) The Ministry of Construction and Transportation’s guidelines for investigation and calculation of the officially assessed land price in 204 (No. 64 No. 1,30 through 32) provides that “Land characteristics” shall be classified into land categories, area, public regulation (specific-use area, specific-use district, other restrictions [area, etc.], farmland (division/non-building/land rearrangement), forest land use (type/non-building/land rearrangement), land use status (residential, commercial/business complex, main and commercial complex, industrial complex, rice, field, field, field, special land, public land, etc.), geographical features (low, shape, defense), road conditions (road, street), hazardous facilities accessibility (road, street), and other characteristics. However, the possibility of land use by the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△§), and it does not appear that the possibility of land use by the specific land type is different from the specific land type.

The officially announced price of the standard land shall be the index of general land transactions, and where the State, local governments, etc. calculates the land price in connection with their duties or an appraisal business entity individually evaluates land, the officially assessed individual land price shall be determined and publicly announced by the head of a Si/Gun/Gu as of the base date in order to use the land price for the purpose prescribed by other Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the imposition of development charges and imposition of other taxes. Therefore, determination of the officially announced price of the standard land or the officially assessed individual land price is contrary to the purpose of calculating the officially announced land price, not to the characteristics of the land itself determined as of a certain point, but to the ownership relationship of variable and relative land and buildings, it is practically impossible to grasp and reflect the ownership relationship of all the national land and buildings every year

The defendant assessed the land of this case and (number omitted) land of this case at the same time and decided and announced the officially assessed land price of 6,330,000 won per square meter (No. 59-3, No. 61-3, No. 61-6), and as seen earlier, the circumstance that the use of land is restricted due to the existence of buildings owned by others on the land is not included in the items of land characteristics survey stipulated in the Public Notice of Values Act and related guidelines, and all of the land of this case and (number omitted) are used as part of the land site of Samsan Tourist Hotel and its related facilities. In light of the other characteristics of each individual land, it seems reasonable to use each of the above land as a group of land in an indivisible relationship for the purpose of use in terms of social, economic, and administrative aspects (No. 47). Therefore, it seems reasonable to reasonably evaluate the officially assessed individual land price as the land of this case by the defendant on January 1, 2004.

In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff pointed out that the officially assessed land price of the instant land was much less than 6,30,000 won, which was 4,720,000 won on January 1, 2004, which is a part of the land site of the 330,000 tourist hotel (number 6 omitted), and that it is improper to assess the site of the instant land as a group of the land. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s land number (6 omitted) is deemed to be completely identical to the land of the 30,000 won on which the land of this case was 6,330,00 won on January 1, 204, it is unreasonable to view that the Defendant calculated the standard land price of the instant land as the land of this case on which the land of this case was 64-22,23,23, or 266, the Defendant’s publicly assessed land price of this case on the ground that it is inconsistent with the above circumstances.

In addition, according to the data on the calculation of the officially assessed individual land price as of January 1, 2004 (Evidence No. 59, 61, 64) of the land in this case, the defendant seems to have determined the publicly announced individual price of the land in this case according to the procedure and method prescribed by the Public Notice of Values Act.

In comparison with the market price at the time of May 20, 205, the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land was acquired by the Plaintiff through a private donation, according to each appraisal result (i.e., evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 9; ii) assessed by treating the instant land as the land at the time of the first instance trial and each appraisal result (i.e., statement of evidence Nos. 7-6, 7, and 9; iii) assessed by regarding the instant land as the land at the time of May 20, 2005, the appraisal value of the instant land was between KRW 18,900,000 and KRW 19,40,000,000,000, and (ii) regarding the land at the time of the first instance trial, it is difficult to view that the appraisal value of the instant land was 0,085,723,000 won based on the publicly assessed individual land price of the instant land at the time of January 1, 2004, 2005.

In comparison of the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land and the surrounding land on January 1, 2004, the land price of the instant land was 6,330,000, while the land (number omitted) related to the instant land and the said land group was 6,820,000 won for the land around Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and 6,190,000 won for the land (number 9 omitted), 6,200,000 for the land (number 7 omitted), and 6,390,000 for the land (number 10 omitted) for 6,39,000 won for the land in most surrounding areas and the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land (number 61-3 through 9).

(4) In full view of the above circumstances, the land use restriction situation asserted by the Plaintiff is not reflected in the decision of the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land, but in determining the officially assessed individual land price of the instant land in accordance with the Public Notice of Values Act and the relevant guidelines, deeming the instant land used as the instant land site as an indivisible land for the purpose of use as a group of land in an indivisible relationship with the instant land. It cannot be deemed that the procedural defect exists or the officially assessed individual land price has been remarkably unreasonable. The Plaintiff

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of the disposition of the registration tax of this case and revocation of the disposition of the acquisition tax of this case shall be dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is so decided, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges intentionally (Presiding Judge) and in the order of the highest order

Note 1) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 1].

Note 2) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 1] <2>

3) 310.87 square meters = 3,173.1 square meters of the instant land area 】 9.797% of the building area for high-class recreation centers on the total floor area of the building (i.e., 1,301,59 square meters of the area for high-class recreation centers or 13,285 square meters of the total floor area of 3,28

4) 11,518,353,00 won = 3,173.1 square meter x 3,630,000 square meter / [the officially assessed individual land price of January 1, 2002]

5) According to Article 112(2)4 of the Local Tax Act, the acquisition tax rate for a building belonging to a high-class recreation center and its appurtenant land shall be increased by 500/100 (5/1,000 of the acquisition value of the object) of the general tax rate (20/1,000 of the acquisition value), and the acquisition tax rate for a building corresponding to a high-class recreation center and its appurtenant land shall be increased by 10/100 (10/

6) Therefore, the total acquisition tax amount is KRW 389,559,910 (i.e., KRW 276,440,470 on the instant land + KRW 113,119,440 on the instant high-class recreation center). The total amount of special rural development tax is KRW 35,709,650 (i.e., KRW 25,340 on the instant land + KRW 25,369,280 on the instant high-class recreation center).

Note 7) 20,085,723,00 won = 3,173.1 square meter ¡¿ 6,330,000 square meter/ square meter (individual land price as of January 1, 2004)

8) Therefore, the total acquisition tax amount is KRW 550,464,590 (=398,921,870 on the instant land + KRW 151,542,720 on the instant high-class recreation center). The total amount of special rural development tax is KRW 25,795,620 on the instant land + KRW 18,848,210 on the instant land + KRW 6,947,410 on the instant high-class recreation center).

9) The Plaintiff corrected the purport of the claim by deeming that there was a disposition of imposition on the sum of the fourth and fifth dispositions in the first instance trial. However, since the fifth disposition is a increased and decreased disposition, the fourth disposition is absorption of the fifth disposition. Since the Defendant imposed the remainder after deducting the amount of tax already imposed from the amount of tax calculated lawfully at the time of the fifth disposition, the instant disposition of imposition on the aggregate of the fourth and fifth dispositions is subject to imposition on the first and fifth dispositions.

Note 10) The corresponding provision is as stated in [Attachment 1] <1>

Note 11) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 1]

Note 12) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 3].

Note 13) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 3].

Note 14) The corresponding provision is as stated in [Attachment 1]

Note 15) The corresponding provision is as stated in [Attachment 1]

Note 16) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 4].

Note 17) The corresponding provision is as stated in [Attachment 1]

Note 18) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 4].

Note 19) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 4].

Note 20) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 1]

Note 21) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 1]

Note 22) The relevant provision is listed in [Attachment 1]

Note 23) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 1] <2>

Note 24) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 2]

Note 25) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 2]

Note 26) The relevant provision is as stated in [Attachment 2]