Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case was lawful in light of the reasons for the disposition and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff is designated as the redevelopment area until now, and so long as the designation has not been invalidated, the person who acquired the land can obtain authorization for the execution of the redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the redevelopment project shall also be implemented, and the designation of the redevelopment area shall not become null and void because the company acquired the land of this case by auction. As the non-party company acquired the redevelopment project on November 1, 1989 with authorization for the execution of the redevelopment project, the conditions for the transfer of the redevelopment site subject to the continuation of the redevelopment project were subsequently fulfilled, and as long as the above company executed the redevelopment project, the redevelopment site of this case was actually provided for the purpose of the redevelopment project, the special surtax shall be exempted in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation under Article 58 (1) of the

The provisions on the requirements for non-taxation or tax reduction and exemption shall be interpreted strictly as the provisions on taxation requirements because the expanded interpretation would result in a result contrary to the principle of equity in taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7191, May 22, 1990). According to Article 58(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4021, Dec. 26, 198), the exemption of special surtax on the income accrued from the transfer of land, etc. in urban redevelopment district shall be limited to the case where the land owner transfers the land, etc. to a project operator after the date of authorization for the implementation of urban redevelopment project. The above exemption requirements for special surtax are met after the transfer date, and the above exemption requirements are met after the transfer date, and the head of the district tax office under Article 58(3) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 47-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not require the project operator to purchase the land, etc. in addition to the corporate tax amount authorized by the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the above 1, 2, 6, 8, and 1, 9-1 to 8 of the evidence Nos. 4, 5, the Plaintiff Company (former Mayang Construction Company) was entitled to tax reduction or exemption for the development site of this case from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on May 17, 1984 to the 4th day of September 16, 1986, and the Plaintiff Company was entitled to tax reduction or exemption for the redevelopment project of this case under the Urban Redevelopment Act. The Plaintiff Company was not entitled to tax reduction or exemption for the redevelopment project of this case on March 30, 1985. The Plaintiff Company was not entitled to tax exemption and exemption for the redevelopment project of this case. The Plaintiff Company was also entitled to tax exemption and exemption for the redevelopment project of this case to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the 19th day of March 19, 198. The Plaintiff Company was also entitled to tax exemption and exemption for the redevelopment project of this case to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the redevelopment site of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the disposition of this case is illegal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Shin Sung-ho (Presiding Judge)