Ulsan District Court 2014Guhap2533 (2015.11)

The conversion of acquisition value by applying the standard market price according to the provisional grade in this case is legitimate.

(1) On the date set by the instant formula, the provisional grade was set on the land designated as the land to be reserved for replotting, and the land grade and the provisional grade are not a separate system but merely changed depending on the change of circumstances, and they are deemed to have been continuously viewed as mutual. Therefore, it is legitimate to convert the acquisition value by applying the standard market price according to the provisional grade according to the instant formula.

Article 99 (Assessment of Standard Market Price)

2015Nu21643 Revocation of disposition of imposing capital gains tax

AA

○ Head of tax office

Ulsan District Court Decision 2014Guhap2533 Decided June 11, 2015

November 11, 2015

December 23, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition disposition of the capital gains tax on October 4, 2013 rendered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 4, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason for this Court’s ruling is as follows: (a) the relevant laws and regulations are replaced by the relevant laws and regulations of this Court; and (b) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant’s assertion as follows; and (c) such judgment is cited pursuant to Article 8(2)

[Supplementary Judgment]

Determination on the assertion that the acquisition value shall be calculated based on the area of land before replotting

The plaintiff asserts that the provisional grade of the land of this case, which was designated for the land of this case, already reflects the price increase due to the difference between the land before replotting (hereinafter referred to as "previous land") and the area of the land of this case in addition to the increase of the total land price due to land development, etc., the acquisition price shall be calculated by multiplying the standard market price at the time of acquisition by 35.5 square meters, which is the area of previous land, according to Article 77 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, based on the standard market price at the time of acquisition, pursuant to Article 77 (2) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act. However, the disposition of this case, which is calculated based on

On the other hand, Article 77 (2) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act provides that where the owner of previous land receives the liquidation money for replotting, the amount equivalent to the liquidation money for replotting shall be excluded from the acquisition value. According to each entry in the evidence No. 2-1 and No. 5, the defendant shall calculate the acquisition value on the basis of the area of previous land, but it seems that Article 77 (2) 2 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act is merely applied to exclude the amount equivalent to the liquidation money for replotting in order to exclude the amount equivalent to the liquidation money for replotting from the amount equivalent to the liquidation money for replotting. As such, it is just in accordance with the above provision that the defendant calculated the acquisition value except for the portion for the liquidation money for replotting, and there is no error in the law. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion that the provisional rating itself is illegal

In addition, the Plaintiff’s provisional grade 203 (89,300 won) which was determined as the land scheduled for substitution on May 1, 1989 with respect to the instant land was higher than that of 150 (6,730 won) with respect to the previous land as modified on January 1, 1989, and the price increase rate is approximately 13 times more than that of 150 (6,730 won) with respect to the previous land. The above provisional grade is set at an abnormal rating for about 4 months.

Therefore, this case’s disposition based on the land is also unlawful without considering the actual value of the land in this case’s land. However, in a case where a land substitution is designated under the Land Substitutionalization and Rearrangement Project Act, the standard market value of the land in the said land within the said land substitution and rearrangement project zone is determined based on the provisional grade newly established following the designation of the land substitution and without using the land grade determined before the land substitution is designated. Such provisional grade falls under the category of the modified class under Article 80-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 195), and the previous land owner may exercise the same right to use and benefit from the previous land if the land substitution is implemented, but it is impossible to adjust the land classification such as the land substitution before the land substitution becomes final and conclusive, and thus, the determination of the provisional grade is not necessary until the land substitution becomes final and conclusive, and the landowner or interested person’s objection to the provisional grade creation or revision is not subject to any other taxation under Article 164665 of the former Enforcement Rule (amended by Ordinance).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.