The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to Article 180 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act, "land" refers to all land under the Cadastral Act, and Article 5 of the Cadastral Act provides that "land category shall be determined by classifying it into .... pursuant to the main purpose of use of land, and matters necessary for establishing such land category shall be determined by Presidential Decree." Accordingly, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act provides that "land mainly cultivating plants" in subparagraphs 1 and 2 shall be referred to as "transfer site", and Article 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act provides that "the site and the site and the prescribed number of attached facilities connected thereto and the planned site for construction completed due to the urban planning project or the construction completed due to a housing site creation project under other Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be referred to as "building site", and it shall be determined whether land is subject to taxation of property tax under the Local Tax Act or not, which is subject to taxation of farmland tax, by objectively evaluating the long-term main purpose of use of the land, its location and form suitable

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land subject to taxation of this case was originally transferred or return, but the mine group's completion of a land readjustment project executed from March 1, 1981 to August 1983 for the purpose of housing land creation, and as of the starting date of the property tax payment period of this case, the above land was adjacent to the 20m wide and eightm wide, and the above land was changed to the site on the public register which is suitable for the construction after the completion of water supply facilities, etc., and in light of the above land phenomenon, the plaintiff's cultivation on the above ground is merely temporary use of the land, and thus it cannot be deemed that the above land is farmland due to the above cultivation. In light of the records, the court below's decision on the imposition of the property tax of this case is justified. In light of the records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit,

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)