[도시계획세부과처분취소][공1996.7.15.(14),2048]
Whether a facility such as a ground building exists in a public facility site as pointed out and publicly notified under the Urban Planning Act, is excluded from the object of taxation of urban planning tax (affirmative)
In full view of the provisions of Article 235 of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, land for public facilities, which are pointed out and published under the Urban Planning Act, is clearly excluded from taxation regardless of whether there are facilities such as
Article 235(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act
Japan Public Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jin-hun et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
The head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (Attorney Jeon Soo-chul, Counsel for defendant)
Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu21841 delivered on April 20, 1995
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
In full view of the provisions of Article 235 of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 105 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and Article 105 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, the land for public facilities as pointed out and publicly notified under the Urban Planning Act shall be excluded from taxation regardless of whether facilities such as above-ground buildings exist, and according to the decision of the court below as determined by the court below, the land in this case is a land for public facilities, that is, a park that is publicly notified under the Urban Planning Act, and thus, the land in this case
In addition, according to Article 14(1) of the Urban Park Act, park managers, who are not administrative agencies, may collect admission fees from persons entering the relevant urban park, or use fees from persons who use park facilities. Moreover, it shall not be permitted to expand or reduce the taxation requirements and non-taxation requirements under the principle of no taxation without the law without the law, and as such, the above park managers are collecting admission fees and usage fees from the above park visitors or facility users, the conclusion does not change.
In addition, other arguments are that since the land in this case is actually used as an amusement park, it is subject to urban planning tax. However, there is no evidence to conclude that the land in this case is used as an amusement park, not a park, and in light of the purport of the above provisions of the Local Tax Act, the land pointed out and publicly announced as a site for public facilities shall be deemed excluded from urban planning tax without relation to its current state
In the same purport, the court below is just that the land in this case is not a taxable object of urban planning tax, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the subject matter of urban planning tax as discussed. There is no reason to discuss.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)