재산세부과처분 취소소송에서 ‘표준지공시지가결정의 위법성’을 다툴 수 있는지 여부

Abstract

The publicly announced standard land price is effective only when it is determined and announced according to the procedures and methods set forth in the 「Act on Public Notice of Real Estate Prices」. In order to challenge the publicly announced standard land price determination, the subject judgment must, in principle, contest the publicly announced land price determination itself in accordance with the objection procedure or administrative litigation procedures stipulated in the above Act, and the illegality of the publicly announced land price determination, which is the preceding disposition, in the tax imposition disposition, which is a later disposition, is an independent violation of the law. It was confirmed that it could not be claimed as a reason. This is justified as it reflects the characteristics of the publicly announced standard land price, which is a confirmatory administrative act. As the public awareness of rights increases as the standard and individual officially announced land prices are repeatedly announced, it is doubtful whether the existing precedents can maintain the acceptance limit theory recognized in the individual publicly announced land price determination. Even if the standard land price determination is regarded as an individual official land price determination, for the land selected as the standard lot, it cannot be seen that the same legal principle as the individual official land price determination is applied as long as it is determined by the procedure and method of the standard land price determination in the Price Public Notice Act. The comparative judgment(Supreme Court 2008. 8. 21. Decided 2007du 13845) is about whether or not to recognize the binding force of the standard land price determination of a comparative standard lot in a lawsuit for increase in expropriation compensation. In a lawsuit for an increase in expropriation compensation, the court can select a different comparative standard land, not the comparative standard land in question, and calculate a legitimate expropriation compensation through reassessment. The role of standard land for comparison in the form of litigation or the method of calculating compensation is different from that of standard land prices in appeal proceedings. Even if illegality is confirmed by acknowledging the succession of defects in a lawsuit for revocation of a later disposition, the court cannot arbitrarily determine the publicly announced standard land price; the standard land price must be determined and announced again according to the procedures and methods under the Price Public Notice Act; the individual publicly announced land price and all subsequent dispositions based on the standard lot requires re-disposal. The succession recognition of defects has a great impact on legal relationships. The existing discussion on the succession recognition of defects in the standard lot notification price determination is based on the premise of the wrong content about the method, effect, re-disposition of the standard lot notification decision, and the scope of judgment of the court. Relief of the parties' rights should be approached from the perspective of claiming the invalidity of the standard lot notification price determination in the cancellation lawsuit for the subsequent disposition, and strictly interpreting whether the procedure or method under the Price Public Disclosure Act is observed for the scope of invalidation, and actually the trial of the lawsuit should also focus on this.