The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case on September 15, 1976 was subject to the disposition of designating the land scheduled for substitution on July 18, 1975, and the suspension work and road work was completed on June 25, 1976 and the drainage facility was completed on December 27, 197, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or by incomplete deliberation.

Furthermore, the court below determined that "the date on which a project can be constructed as a unit of partition" in Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (c) (main sentence) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act means the date on which a building can be constructed as a result of a land readjustment project, etc. even before a disposition of replotting is publicly announced in the case of a land readjustment project, and on the premise that when a land suspension work and a road facility is completed in addition to the completion of a land readjustment project, it is possible to make a dry side of December 27, 197 before the completion of a land readjustment project, the plaintiff acquired the land in this case after the commencement of a land readjustment project, and therefore the plaintiff should pay a property tax on the public land from the second period of February 15, 1980, which is the starting date of the payment period of the property tax for the second period of September 15, 1980. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, based on the precedent (Supreme Court Decision 82Nu588, Jul. 9, 1985).

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-soo (Presiding Justice)