[재산세등부과처분취소][집39(2)특,462;공1991.7.1,(899),1662]
(a) Criteria for determining whether a house, which is a taxable unit of property tax, etc., is located;
(b) The case holding that two houses cannot be deemed as housing of "one" which is a taxable unit of property tax, etc., in case where a father who is a separate household on his resident registration resides in two houses owned by his father, who is constructed independently on the site of another lot number on his own, respectively, within one fence;
A. According to Articles 188(1)2(1), 235(1), 240(1) and (2), 142(1)2(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, a house which is subject to property tax, etc., is classified as one taxable unit for taxation and classified as one taxable object. Here, whether it constitutes one house or not should be determined for the purpose of a single residential purpose depending on whether it is provided as a single residential unit pursuant to the economic usage as a whole.
B. If 2 houses owned by their father are respectively constructed as independent buildings on the site of different lot numbers, and each house resident constitutes a separate household on the resident registration, 2 houses are constructed in one fence, and they share mato and gate, and even if the resident is between his father and son, the said 2 houses do not constitute a house provided on the unit of a single residential life, which is a tax unit, such as property tax, etc., in light of the economic usage as a whole.
Articles 188(1)2(i), 235(1), 240(1) and (2), Article 142(1)2(i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 166 others (Law Firm Gong1, 1985, 1250) (Law No. 1990, 1390, 1390) and 89Nu2363 decided May 22, 1990
Plaintiff
The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu7830 delivered on July 26, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on its macroficial evidence, that the plaintiff owned a house newly constructed on the ground of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) 456 square meters of 143.83 square meters of 1st, 143.83 square meters of 1st, 10.91 square meters of 1st, and 41.72 square meters of 1st, 103.23 square meters of 103.23 square meters of 1st, 1985, 1985, and 2nd houses of this case were constructed within a fence without indicating the boundary of the site and are going to the outside. The court below held that the above house was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff himself resides in the house of this case and the non-party 1, his father, who has a separate household with his father, was living in the house of this case, and that the housing of this case is a common facility of this case.
According to the provisions of Article 188(1)2(i), Article 235(1), Article 240(1) and (2), Article 142(1)2(1)2(i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, housing which is subject to property tax, etc. is classified as one taxable object based on the tax unit “one” and is classified as one taxable object. Here, whether it constitutes one house should be determined for the purpose of determining whether it is provided as one residential unit in accordance with the economic usage as a whole.
According to the facts duly established by the court below based on the evidence, two houses of this case are constructed as independent buildings, and they are not constructed on the same lot number, and each resident of this case constitutes a separate household on the resident registration, so even though two houses owned by the plaintiff were constructed, and are located in a single fence and have mas and gate together with his father and son, it cannot be viewed that the two houses of this case constitute a house provided as a unit of one residential life in light of the economic usage as a whole.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below with this purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the classification of property subject to taxation under the Local Tax Act, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence. The arguments are groundless.
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.
Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)