Appropriateness of the assertion that the transfer income tax was erroneously imposed due to the erroneous calculation of the officially assessed individual land price

In order to raise an objection against the officially announced value of land, an administrative litigation that seeks the cancellation of the determination of the officially announced value of land shall be filed, and without following such procedures, an administrative litigation may not immediately bring an objection against the illegality of the officially announced value of the standard

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price of Income Tax of the Gu)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition of correction of capital gains tax against the plaintiff on October 23, 2006 shall be revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On January 23, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred, to the Korea Land Corporation, ○○○○○○-ri, Nonparty 457-7 and 2 lots (hereinafter “instant land”), which was owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant land”). On March 31, 2006, the Plaintiff calculated the transfer value of the instant land by applying the officially assessed land price in 2005, and calculated the transfer value of the instant land by applying the officially assessed land price in 2005, and then filed a preliminary return on the tax base of capital gains tax by designating KRW 74,250,360, the tax amount calculated accordingly, as the transfer income tax for the transfer of the instant land as the transfer income tax for the instant land, and paid

B. On October 18, 2006, under the premise that the transfer value of the instant land should be calculated based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2004 instead of the officially assessed individual land price in 2005, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction of the tax base and tax amount with the purport that the transfer income tax amount would be revised to KRW 38,558,930, which was calculated by applying the officially assessed individual land price in 2004. However, on October 23, 2006, the Defendant issued a disposition rejecting correction against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The officially assessed individual land price in 2005, which was the basis for the calculation of the capital gains tax of the instant land, was designated as a housing site development zone on February 15, 2004, and thereafter, was calculated arbitrarily by anticipateing subsequent increase in land prices, even if there was almost no land price due to trade, etc. after being designated as a housing site development zone. Therefore, the disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s request for correction is unlawful even though the capital gains from the transfer of the instant land should be imposed based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2005

B. Relevant statutes

Article 96 (Value of Transfer)

Article 99 (Calculation of Standard Market Price of Income Tax of the Gu)

Article 164 of the former Enforcement Decree of Income Tax Act

C. Determination

(1) Article 96 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that when the assets subject to the transfer income tax are transferred by December 31, 2006, the standard market price at the time of the transfer of the assets shall be based on the "standard market price at the time of the transfer of the assets," but such standard market price shall be based on the "official land price under the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act". Thus, in order to calculate the transfer price of the land of this case transferred before December 31, 2006, the officially assessed land price in 2006, which is the time of the transfer of the land of this case ( January 2006), shall be based on the officially assessed land price in 206, but the date of the decision and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price in Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate (the date of the decision and public notice of the officially assessed individual land price in May 31, 2006).

(2) However, the legitimacy of the determination of the officially assessed individual land price is, in principle, determined according to the procedures and methods stipulated in the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act and the guidelines for the investigation and calculation of the officially assessed individual land price, and it is not directly related to the market price of the pertinent land. Thus, even if the price of the individual land is different from the market price or is determined differently from the change, the determination of the price cannot be deemed unlawful solely on such grounds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu13056, Jul. 12, 196). In this case without any assertion as to the fact that there was any error in the process of the determination of the comparative standard and the price factor of the pertinent land, the price of the officially assessed individual land price cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that there was no

In addition, the Plaintiff did not claim that the officially assessed individual land price in 2005 was unfairly calculated due to errors such as the method of determining the officially assessed individual land price, but on the premise that the price per se of the officially assessed individual land price in 2005, which was the basis of the officially assessed individual land price, was excessively high, it shall be deemed that the officially assessed individual land price was unfairly calculated in 2005. However, in order to raise an objection to the officially assessed land price of the land selected as the reference land, an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation of the said determined individual land price determination through the procedure of objection under Article 8(1) of the Public Notice of Values and Appraisal of Real Estate Act shall be filed, in order to raise an objection to the determination of the officially assessed land price of the reference land, and without following such procedure, the illegality of the officially assessed land price of the reference land in a tax lawsuit can not be asserted (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1646

(3) Therefore, the Defendant’s instant disposition that calculated the transfer income tax of the instant land based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2005 is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.