Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Housing price comparison table as a standard supplementing the statutes
Supreme Court, Jan. 29, 2026, 2025Du35153 (judgment)
Case name: 취득세등부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is the housing price comparison table, which the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepares and provides under Article 16(6) of the Real Estate Price Disclosure Act, a standard of legal character that supplements the statutes?
Holding
It does. Reading the provisions of the former Local Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree together with the Real Estate Price Disclosure Act and its Enforcement Decree, the Court held that the comparison table has the character of a standard that supplements the statutes, alongside the individual housing price survey and assessment guidelines the Minister sets under Article 35(1) of the Enforcement Decree. On that basis it found no error in the court below's conclusion that the defendant's use of the table to compute the standard value, and so to impose acquisition tax on a luxury residence, was lawful, and that no proper reason excused the surcharge on the plaintiffs' failure to file and pay properly.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
국토교통부장관이 부동산공시법 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표는 부동산공시법 시행령 제35조 제1항에 따라 국토교통부장관이 정하는 ‘개별주택가격 조사·산정지침’과 더불어 법령보충적인 역할을 하는 법규적 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The housing price benchmark table that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepares and provides pursuant to Article 16 (6) of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act, together with the 'Guidelines for the Survey and Calculation of Individual Housing Prices' prescribed by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act, must be regarded as having the normative nature of a rule that performs a supplementary role to statutes and regulations.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
법령보충적인 역할을 하는 법규적 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
must be regarded as having the normative nature of a rule that performs a supplementary role to statutes and regulations.
Factors
- 구 지방세법(2023. 3. 14. 법률 제19230호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1항, 제13조 제5항 제3호, 구 지방세법 시행령(2023. 12. 29. 대통령령 제34080호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제4항 제2호, 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률(이하 ‘부동산공시법’이라 한다) 제16조 제6항, 제17조 제1항, 제5항, 제9항, 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률 시행령(이하 ‘부동산공시법 시행령’이라 한다) 제35조를 종합하면
- 국토교통부장관이 부동산공시법 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표는
- 부동산공시법 시행령 제35조 제1항에 따라 국토교통부장관이 정하는 ‘개별주택가격 조사·산정지침’과 더불어
Unofficial English translation
• Former Local Tax Act (as it existed before its amendment by Act No. 19230 on March 14, 2023) Article 4 (1), Article 13 (5) 3, former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (as it existed before its amendment by Presidential Decree No. 34080 on December 29, 2023) Article 28 (4) 2, Article 16 (6), Article 17 (1), (5), and (9) of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Real Estate Price Public Notice Act'), and Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act'), when taken together,
• The housing price benchmark table that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepares and provides pursuant to Article 16 (6) of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act,
• together with the 'Guidelines for the Survey and Calculation of Individual Housing Prices' prescribed by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
국토교통부장관이 부동산공시법 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표는 부동산공시법 시행령 제35조 제1항에 따라 국토교통부장관이 정하는 ‘개별주택가격 조사·산정지침’과 더불어 법령보충적인 역할을 하는 법규적 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The housing price benchmark table that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepares and provides pursuant to Article 16 (6) of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act, together with the 'Guidelines for the Survey and Calculation of Individual Housing Prices' prescribed by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act, must be regarded as having the normative nature of a rule that performs a supplementary role to statutes and regulations.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When must the housing price comparison table be revised so that a taxpayer can contend that the version applied at the acquisition date misstates the balance required by Article 17(5) of the Real Estate Price Disclosure Act?
A published revision to the housing price comparison table, to the individual housing price survey and assessment guidelines, or to Article 35 of the Enforcement Decree on Real Estate Price Disclosure would require this entry to be read again. So would a decision holding that a particular table does not supplement the statutes, or a further amendment to Article 4(1) or Article 13(5)(iii) of the Local Tax Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as a new standard fixing the legal character of the table, while the independent reading could not confirm any precedent from the text.
국토교통부장관이 부동산공시법 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표는 부동산공시법 시행령 제35조 제1항에 따라 국토교통부장관이 정하는 ‘개별주택가격 조사·산정지침’과 더불어 법령보충적인 역할을 하는 법규적 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When must the housing price comparison table be revised so that a taxpayer can contend that the version applied at the acquisition date misstates the balance required by Article 17(5) of the Real Estate Price Disclosure Act?” vs Independent “Under what circumstances would a particular provision of the housing price comparison table exceed its statutory authorization and be invalid?”
The primary reading asks when the table must be revised so a taxpayer can challenge the version applied at acquisition. The independent reading asks when a particular provision would exceed its delegation and be void.
국토교통부장관이 부동산공시법 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표는 부동산공시법 시행령 제35조 제1항에 따라 국토교통부장관이 정하는 ‘개별주택가격 조사·산정지침’과 더불어 법령보충적인 역할을 하는 법규적 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 2 September 2025 (2025Nu10056), upheld the acquisition tax and the surcharge assessed on the plaintiffs' residence as a luxury residence. It reasoned that the value of a house can vary greatly with its surroundings and its natural and social conditions, so that a flexible standard must apply as those conditions change, and that preparing a comparison table calls for professional knowledge and technique that cannot all be set out uniformly in the statutes. It also found no proper reason to excuse the surcharge for the plaintiffs' failure to file and pay the tax properly.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the comparison table has the character of a standard supplementing the statutes, and then read the appellate reasons against the statutes it had set out, the applicable law and the record, finding that the court below had not misread the principle of legality in taxation, the limits of delegated legislation, or the law on a proper reason to excuse a surcharge. It dismissed all the appeals with the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A residence whose acquisition-date standard value does not exceed KRW 900 million, since under the proviso to Article 28(4) of the former Enforcement Decree on Local Taxes only a residence above that figure is a luxury residence.
- A house for which an individual housing price has already been published, since the comparison table is used only under the proviso to Article 4(1) of the former Local Tax Act where no individual housing price has been published.
- A dwelling whose site area does not exceed 662 square metres, so that it falls outside the luxury residence category before the comparison table is reached.
Record verification notes
Confirm first which version of the Local Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree governs, since this decision applied the versions before the amendments of 14 March 2023 (Act No. 19230) and 29 December 2023 (Presidential Decree No. 34080). Then set the residence's site area and its acquisition-date standard value against the 662 square metre and KRW 900 million thresholds, and check that the site had no published individual housing price. The Court left undisturbed the finding below that there was no proper reason to excuse the surcharge.
From the official text
Points at issue
국토교통부장관이 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표가 법규적 성질을 가지는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the housing price benchmark table that the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport prepares and provides pursuant to Article 16 (6) of the Real Estate Price Public Notice Act has the normative nature of a rule (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 지방세법(2023. 3. 14. 법률 제19230호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1항, 제13조 제5항 제3호, 구 지방세법 시행령(2023. 12. 29. 대통령령 제34080호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제4항 제2호, 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률(이하 ‘부동산공시법’이라 한다) 제16조 제6항, 제17조 제1항, 제5항, 제9항, 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률 시행령(이하 ‘부동산공시법 시행령’이라 한다) 제35조를 종합하면, 국토교통부장관이 부동산공시법 제16조 제6항에 따라 작성하여 제공하는 주택가격비준표는 부동산공시법 시행령 제35조 제1항에 따라 국토교통부장관이 정하는 ‘개별주택가격 조사·산정지침’과 더불어 법령보충적인 역할을 하는 법규적 성질을 가진다고 보아야 한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Provisions referred to
구 지방세법(2023. 3. 14. 법률 제19230호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제1항, 제13조 제5항 제3호, 구 지방세법 시행령(2023. 12. 29. 대통령령 제34080호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제28조 제4항 제2호, 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률 제16조 제6항, 제17조 제1항, 제5항, 제9항, 부동산 가격공시에 관한 법률 시행령 제35조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger