Criteria for Calculation of Tax Base Amount of Real Estate Acquisition Tax

The tax base amount of real estate acquisition tax shall, in principle, be based on the purchaser's reported price, but only when the reported price does not reach the amount calculated by the tax base of registration tax under the Registration Tax Act, the amount calculated by multiplying the standard rental price determined by the Commissioner of the tax office having jurisdiction over the relevant land by the rate determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. As such, the imposition of acquisition tax for the amount exceeding the actual market price is unlawful if the standard market price at the

Article 111 of the Local Tax Act, Article 2, Article 29 of the former Registration Tax Act, Article 6 of the Land Taxation Standard Investigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Nu62 delivered on June 20, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 331 Kaod 331 and summary of decision Article 111 (1) 194 of the Local Tax Act)

Plaintiff

The head of Seongdong-gu

The part exceeding 12,211.20 won among the disposition imposing real estate acquisition tax of KRW 35,616 against the plaintiff as of March 1966 shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

As of May 3, 1966, the part of the disposition imposing real estate acquisition tax of KRW 35,616 against the Plaintiff exceeds KRW 11,872,00,000.

1. First, we examine whether the instant lawsuit has gone through the examination procedure under Article 58 of the Local Tax Act.

If Gap evidence Nos. 2-2, 3-2, 3-2, and 12-1 of the evidence Nos. 2-2, 3-2, 3-2, and 12-1, without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff was subject to a disposition of imposition of real estate acquisition tax of 35,616 won from the defendant as of May 3, 196, and requested a reinvestigation on June 1 of that year, but he again notified the decision of rejection on Nov. 23 of that year and submitted a written request for a review to the defendant by the Minister of Home Affairs and the Mayor of Seoul Metropolitan Government as of June 23 of that year, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City recognized that the decision of rejection was groundless on July 28 of that year, and there is no other evidence.

However, according to Article 58 (1) through (3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 44 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a person who has an objection to the disposition of imposition of real estate acquisition tax corresponding to the Do tax in Seoul Special Metropolitan City among local taxes can make a request to the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and if the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is dissatisfied with the decision of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, he can make a request again to the Minister of Home Affairs through the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, so the authority to make a decision of re-inspection shall be the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the authority to review this decision shall be known to the Minister of Home Affairs. Thus, in this case where the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor entrusts the defendant, who is the head of the Gu within his jurisdiction, with the right to impose and collect real estate acquisition tax within his jurisdiction (this delegation shall be interpreted as Article 4 of the Local Tax Act) and the defendant, who is the authority to make a request for re-examination of this case, has the authority to make a request for re-examination to the Minister of Home Affairs.

Therefore, this lawsuit is brought through legitimate review procedures (the date of the lawsuit is August 12, 1966 according to the records, so it is apparent that the request for review was dismissed, and that it was brought within the legitimate filing period from the date when the request for review is considered to have been dismissed).

2.To enter the following parts:

The plaintiff purchased at KRW 360,560 per square year, at KRW 360,00 per square year, from March 18, 1965, the plaintiff purchased at KRW 360,560 per 360 per square year, in accordance with the calculation of tax base under the Registration Tax Act in 1965, the above land market price was calculated at KRW 1,050 per square year, and at KRW 35,616, as stated in the purport of the claim, the real estate acquisition tax was assessed at KRW 1,050 per square year. However, since the actual market price at the time of the plaintiff's purchase does not exceed KRW 360 per square year, the plaintiff's actual market price at the time of the plaintiff's purchase does not exceed KRW 360 per square year at the market price at the time of the above land.

However, according to Article 111 of the Local Tax Act, the tax base of acquisition tax is the price at the time of acquisition, but it is difficult for the plaintiff to calculate the market price at ordinary 350 won per ordinary 350 won at the time of acquisition as the tax base and claim that the tax base of this case is illegal in violation of the no taxation without the law. Thus, according to Articles 11(1) and (2) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 2(1) and 29 of the Registration Tax Act, and Article 6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Tax Act, and Article 6(1) of the Land Taxation Standard Act, the tax base of acquisition tax is the price at the time of acquisition, and it is hard to view that the price at issue is above the market price at the time of acquisition, and it is hard to view that the price at issue is above the market price at the time of sale at the time of acquisition at the time of price at the time of the above 30th anniversary of the fact that the price at issue is above the market price at the time of sale price at the time.

Therefore, when calculating the acquisition tax amount according to the tax rate under Article 112 of the Local Tax Act by calculating the price of the above land at the market price at the time of the purchase of the above land and calculating the acquisition tax amount at the market price at the market price at the time of the purchase of the above land as the tax base (360 x 1696) 】 (2/100) x 12,211.20), the part exceeding 12,211,20 won among the disposition imposing the acquisition tax of this case by the defendant cannot be cancelled. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognition limit, and the remaining claim is dismissed, and the decision is delivered as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-joon