The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

If an administrative disposition is defective in the administrative disposition, if the administrative disposition becomes void in the annual installments, the defect must be serious and objectively apparent (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu423 delivered on February 13, 1985).

According to the court below's lawful determination, the plaintiff was divided into four pieces of farmland with 2,496 square meters prior to May 25, 1960, and the repayment was completed with the farmland distribution at 2,496 square meters prior to Guro-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), and (2) 1,207 square meters prior to 235 square meters prior to ( Address 1 omitted), 233 square meters prior to ( Address 2 omitted), 30 square meters prior to 209 square meters prior to ( Address 3 omitted), and 4 square meters prior to 530 square meters prior to ( Address 4 omitted) and (No. 18 square meters prior to June 30 of the same year, and (No. 2) and (No. 98 square meters prior to the transfer of farmland to non-party 1, 198 without any income accruing from the transfer of the above farmland to non-party 1, 198, and (3) the transfer of the above farmland to non-party 2, without any income from the above farmland transfer.

Article 5 subparagraph 6 (d) of the Income Tax Act, Article 198 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3757 of Dec. 24, 1984), Article 149 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11,571 of Dec. 31, 1984), and Article 85 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 423 of Dec. 31, 1984) of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 423 of Dec. 31, 1984), the imposition of capital gains tax, etc. in this case, in light of the contents and purport of the provisions of subparagraph 6 (d) of Article 5 of the same Act, Article 198 of the same Act, Article 149 of the same Act,

However, with respect to the fact that the above defect is objectively obvious, as determined by the court below, the plaintiff submitted to the defendant a certificate of urban planning tax and property tax payment without tax on farmland to the defendant, and there was room for misconception that the above transfer land is actually a siteized land located within the urban planning zone. Whether the transfer income of each of the above land is non-taxable income or not is a non-taxable income is less than 30 square meters for each crop and the production area of each of the above land is less than 30 square meters, and there is room for dispute over the interpretation of the relationship that is excluded from the taxable object of farmland tax pursuant to the proviso of Article 149 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, so it cannot be said that the existence of the above defect is objectively clear.

Therefore, since the taxation disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, the judgment of the court below to the same purport cannot be deemed to have misunderstanding of legal principles, and the judgment of party members in the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate in this case, and therefore, it

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)