[1] Whether a lawsuit seeking revocation of the determination of the officially announced price of individual land can contest the officially announced price of the standard land (negative)

[2] The case holding that the difference between standard market price and standard market price of local tax is not erroneous in the calculation of individual land price

[1] In order to raise an objection against the officially assessed price of the land selected as the reference land, an administrative litigation shall be filed against the disposition agency to revoke the determination of the officially assessed land price, subject to the procedure for raising an objection under Article 8(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and the illegality of the officially assessed price of the reference land, which is the basis for the calculation of individual land

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that, unless the public official in charge of investigation adjusted the price, the difference between the standard market price of local tax imposed on the relevant land and the relevant land is not considered as a result of the difference between the standard market price of local tax imposed on the relevant land and the relevant land, and it cannot be deemed that the land price determined through the procedure under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is illegal, and that the determination of the land price based on the determination of individual land price and the Local Tax Act differs from

[1] Article 5 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act / [2] Article 10 of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and Article 8 of the Guidelines for Joint Investigation of Individual Land Prices and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act (the Prime Minister’s

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10828 delivered on March 8, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1203), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5083 delivered on December 13, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 511), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12920 delivered on March 28, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1762), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1648 delivered on November 10, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3947)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Yeonsu-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu9650 delivered on June 16, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In order to raise an objection against the officially announced land price of a reference land, an administrative litigation shall be filed against the disposition agency to revoke the determination of the officially announced land price, subject to the procedure for an objection under Article 8 (1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Lands, etc. Act, and without following such procedure, an action may not contest the illegality of the officially announced land price of the reference land which is the basis for calculating the individual land price (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu10828, Mar. 8, 1994; 94Nu12920, Mar. 28, 1995; 93Nu16468, Nov. 10, 195). Therefore, even if the officially announced land price of the reference land of a representative land is not considered in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the determination of the officially announced land price of neighboring similar land, such a ground for objection shall not be asserted. The determination of the court below is justifiable and not acceptable.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to Article 8 of the Guidelines for the Joint Investigation of Land Prices (the Prime Minister Directive No. 241 of Apr. 11, 1990), the local land appraisal committee shall deliberate on the propriety of the selection of comparative standard land prices, the application of the price adjustment rate based on the comparison table, and the price adjustment if the public official in charge of the investigation stated his opinion and adjusts the price (Paragraph 1): Provided, That in cases of deliberating on the appropriateness of the price adjusted by the public official in charge of the investigation, it shall take into account the difference between the standard price of comparison and the local tax assessment based on the comparison table and the difference between the price adjustment rate based on the comparison table (Paragraph 2), and there is no evidence to view that the land in this case is a case where the public official in charge of the investigation conducted the price adjustment based on the comparison table, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the land price determined through the procedure of the related Acts and subordinate statutes is unlawful, and it shall not be justified in the determination of the price of land in this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)