[택지초과소유부담금부과처분취소][공1996.1.15.(2),244]
[1] The meaning of "permanent building" under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site
[2] The meaning of "land on which the pertinent building is constructed" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 (Attached Table 1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site and Paragraph 1 of the Non-Attachment 1
[1] In full view of the contents and purport of Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and Articles 2 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a permanent building under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act shall be interpreted as a building which must be permitted or reported pursuant to the Building Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes and which must not be permitted or reported and a building which must be inspected upon completion and which shall not be inspected upon completion.
[2] It is reasonable to interpret that "land on which the building in question is constructed" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site refers to "land on which the building in question is constructed".
[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 2 (1) and Article 3 subparagraph 1 [Attachment 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites / [2] Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3506 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 117), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8358 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 921), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu9122 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2408) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1149 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2823)
Plaintiff
The head of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu33424 delivered on April 6, 1995
The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. On the first ground for appeal
In full view of the contents and purport of Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"), and Article 3 of the same Act, it is reasonable to interpret that a permanent building under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the same Act shall be permitted or reported pursuant to the Building Act and other related Acts and subordinate statutes, and a building which is required to undergo a completion inspection without obtaining permission or filing a report, and a building which is required to undergo a completion inspection and which is not subject to a completion inspection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu3506, Nov. 25, 1994; 94Nu8358, Jan. 20, 1995; 94Nu9122, Jun. 13, 1995).
Therefore, the court below's decision that a building on the land subject to consideration in calculating the excess ownership charges shall be based only on the building permit and completion inspection, and other unauthorized buildings, etc. shall be excluded therefrom is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.
2. On the second ground for appeal
Article 3 subparag. 1 [Attachment 1] Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Decree and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Non-fixed Building Act mean "land on which the building in question is constructed" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1149, Jul. 14, 1995) and it is reasonable to interpret that "land on which the building in question is constructed" means "land on which the building in question is constructed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1149, Jul. 14, 1995). Thus, the court below held that the value of the building in this case is less than 10/100 of the value of the land on which the building in question is constructed, and there is a reason for pointing this out.
3. Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)