흠 있는 공시지가 결정에 근거한 과세처분의 구제방법: 개별공시지가 결정과 재산세 부과처분을 중심으로

Abstract

The purpose of this dissertation is to link the discussion of the remedy against tax imposition based on the flawed determination of an official land value, with the levy of the local tax, particularly the property tax. The official values of individual lands, which are publicly announced, are not notified directly to relevant taxpayers, and a valuation does not by itself give rise to a practical, specific obligation of tax payments. It would therefore be difficult to require a taxpayer to review any flaws in the government valuation and raise an objection thereto within the 30-day period of filing an objection. A taxpayer can review any flaws with the official value of an individual land only when he or she has been notified of actual tax payments. It would thus be cruel, from the perspective of protecting property rights of taxpayers and guaranteeing access to courts, to deprive a taxpayer of an opportunity to contest an official land valuation just because an act of incontestability already occurred. Judicial precedents recognize such issues, and allow a flaw in an official value of an individual land asset to be challenged when the tax levy is contested, that is, allow the valuation flaw to be succeeded to the contest of the tax collection. Regarding the levy of the acquisition tax, of which payment obligation has been confirmed based on the standard price of the fair market value under the Local Tax Act, it was ruled (Supreme Court, October 11, 2013, Seon’go 2013du6138 etc.) that since the taxation was excessive and unpredictable, the illegality of the official price of the individual land could be an independent cause of the illegality of the acquisition tax. By contrast, there has not been a clear precedent which allows a complaint against an official price of an individual land asset, to be succeeded to the property taxation, and the Tax Tribunal does not recognize such succession (Tax Tribunal 2018ji2009 (April 23, 2019), Tax Tribunal 2018ji3267 (June 25, 2019) etc.). Such position of the Tax Tribunal is not justified because of the different treatments between the property tax and the acquisition tax, the effect of taxation on property rights, attributes of the public notice of the official valuation of individual lands, limitations of the system of contesting the state measures, the guarantee of the actual rights to claims, the need to pursue tax equity by remedying illegalities and so on. Legislatively, an alternative may be considered whereby the Act on Public Notice of Real Estate prescribes to the effect that “if the official value of an individual land provided a basis to implement measures under a different law, the illegality of the official value of the individual land may be contested during the process of challenging such measures. The same does not apply when an objection has already been raised under this Act”, and clarifies when an illegality claim can or cannot be raised.