[2] Where a tax authority erroneously interpreted the meaning of the requirements for taxation without a reasonable ground despite the apparent meaning of the requirements for taxation in the language and text of the statutory provisions, and the relevant disposition was conducted without satisfying the requirements for taxation, whether there is room for dispute over interpretation because the legal principles are not clearly revealed (negative)

[3] The case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle as to property tax invalidation on the premise that there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of Article 84 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, in a case where Gap's land owned by the Corporation constitutes land for harbors, green areas, roads, etc., which are public facilities under Article 2 subparagraph 13 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act and Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as of the property tax assessment basis, and where Gap's land falls under the land for which the determination of urban management plan and topographical drawings concerning urban planning are publicly announced pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the same Act, and the local government, which is the tax authority, imposed property tax, etc. without reduction pursuant to Article 84 (2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act on the ground that the land was already completed with respect to the above land, and filed a return of unjust enrichment on the portion not reduced in the amount of property tax, etc. after the Corporation paid property tax, etc., and there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the above provision.

[2] Even though the meaning of the requirements for taxation in the language and text of the statutory provision is clear, as a result of a wrong interpretation without reasonable grounds, there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the requirements for taxation, since the legal principles are not clearly revealed if the pertinent disposition was conducted without satisfying the requirements for taxation.

[3] The case holding that the judgment below’s construction of land Gap’s land constitutes the land for which the determination of an urban management plan and a topographic map concerning urban planning are publicly notified pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11599, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”); on the ground that the local government, which is the tax authority, had already completed the project, failed to reduce the amount of property tax pursuant to Article 84(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11487, Oct. 2, 2012; hereinafter “the former Land Planning and Utilization Act”) and the public announcement of the reduction of the amount of property tax pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 13 of the former Land Planning and Utilization Act, which is a public facility under Article 4 subparag. 13 of the same Act, and thus, the former Land Planning and Utilization Act, which does not include the land subject to the reduction and exemption of the amount of property tax pursuant to Article 30 of the National Land Planning Act.

1. Criteria for determining the invalidity of a taxation disposition as a matter of course;

In order for the taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, the mere fact that there is an illegal ground for the taxation disposition is insufficient. The defect must be objectively obvious as it seriously violates the important part of the law. When determining whether there is a significant and apparent defect, the purpose, significance, and function of the law, which serves as the basis for the taxation disposition, should be examined from a teleological perspective as well as reasonable consideration on the specificity of the specific case itself. In addition, in a case where a taxation disposition is conducted by applying a provision of a certain law to a certain legal relation or factual relationship, there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, even though there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the law, if the taxation disposition was made by applying the provision of the law, the defect is significant and obvious. However, if there is no clear ground for the interpretation of the law as to the legal relation or factual relations, it is merely erroneous as to the fact that the taxation disposition was conducted by the taxation authority, and thus, it cannot be said that the defect is evident (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Da242409, Jul. 19, 19, 2019).

2. The clarity of interpretation of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. Article 84(2)(hereinafter “instant mitigation provision”) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11487, Oct. 2, 2012; hereinafter the same) stipulates, “In the case of land for public facilities under Article 2 Subparag. 13 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, for which the determination of an urban management plan and a topographical map concerning an urban management plan have been publicly announced pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the same Act, property tax on the relevant portion shall be reduced by 50/100.”

According to the mitigation provision of this case, if a person satisfies all the requirements that “it is a land for public facilities under Article 2 subparag. 13 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 11599, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “former National Land Planning Act”),” and “it is a land for which the determination of an urban management plan and a topographical map as to an urban management plan are publicly announced pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act,” it may be reduced by 50/10 of the property tax, and there is no other additional requirement to obtain such reduction. In addition, according to Article 32 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act, an announcement of a topographic map on an urban management plan is made upon the determination and public announcement of an urban management plan pursuant to Article 30 of the same Act, and even if the execution of an urban planning project is completed later, it is evident that the execution of a topographical map is not included in the land after the public announcement of a topographical map.

As above, the scope of land subject to the mitigation provision of this case is clear in the legal text, and the interpretation of the tax law under the principle of no taxation without law shall be interpreted in accordance with the legal text, barring any special circumstance, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, it is not allowed to interpret it as a meaning different from the

B. Meanwhile, Article 84(1) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act provides that “The property tax shall be reduced by 50/100 and the tax amount imposed pursuant to Article 112 of the Local Tax Act shall be exempted pursuant to Article 112 of the Local Tax Act on the land, a building on the ground, and a house (limited to the corresponding part) under Article 104 subparag. 3 of the Local Tax Act (limited to urban planning facilities under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which have not been implemented for a long period of ten years or more after the topographical map was publicly announced pursuant to Article 32 of the same Act (hereinafter “instant preparation provision”).”

Unlike the mitigation provision of this case, the comparison provision of this case provides that "land, building, and housing (limited to the corresponding part) pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 104 of the former Local Tax Act, which have not been implemented for a long period of ten years or more after the topographical map was publicly announced pursuant to Article 32 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act, as urban planning facilities pursuant to subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the same Act" and provides that the scope of the tax to be reduced is "50/100 of property tax and the amount of tax to be imposed pursuant to Article 112 of the Local Tax Act."

In a case where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through the interpretation of tax laws and regulations, the statutory purport and purpose can be interpreted within the scope that does not undermine the legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without law. However, as seen earlier, since the meaning of the target and the effect of reduction and exemption under the law is clear, it is not necessary to clarify the meaning through the interpretation between the provisions of the comparison in this case. Furthermore, since the comparison provision in this case provides different provisions concerning the target and the effect of reduction and exemption, it is not necessary to clarify the meaning of the provision in this case. As such, applying the comparison provision in this case to the mitigation provision in this case by separating the phrase “a long period of not less than 10 years after the publication of the topographical map” from the phrase “a long period of not less than 10 years after the announcement of the topographical map” goes beyond the scope of interpretation of the text, thereby undermining the legal stability and predictability oriented by the principle of no taxation without law. Moreover, it is not necessary to apply the provision in this case under the pretext of a combined interpretation in consideration of legislative purpose.

Rather, the instant provision requires “land, etc., which has not been executed for a long period of not less than 10 years after the announcement of the topographical map.” On the other hand, the instant mitigation provision only provides that “land, etc. for which the announcement of the topographical map has been made,” and clearly excludes the phrase “unexecution for a period of not less than 10 years” from the requirement, it is reasonable to view that the instant mitigation provision does not require the unexecution of the unexecution.”

C. The instant mitigation provision was amended by Act No. 14477 on December 27, 2016, stating that “The land for public facilities (including the land annexed to a house) under Article 2 Subparag. 13 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, which was not executed as of the tax base date after the determination of the urban management plan and the announcement of a topographic map on the urban management plan pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the same Act, shall be reduced by 50/100 until December 31, 2018.” This provision added a new requirement as to the subject of the instant mitigation provision that “after the announcement of the topographical map was made, unexecution as of the tax base date.” This appears to have been amended to exclude the land, the execution of which was completed under the premise that the instant mitigation provision is included in the reduced or exempted land whose execution was completed as of the initial urban planning purpose.”

D. Therefore, there is no room for dispute over the interpretation of the instant mitigation provision by clarifying its meaning in the statutory text. It is clear that the instant mitigation provision does not apply on the ground that the land to which the instant mitigation provision may apply meets all the requirements for its application, and that it did not meet the new requirements not provided for in the instant mitigation provision, even though its meaning is obvious, it would be arbitrary interpretation of its meaning differently.

3. Determination as to the instant case

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, as of the tax base date of each property tax in 201 and 2012, the instant land owned by the Plaintiff constitutes the land for which the determination of an urban management plan and a topographical map concerning urban planning have been publicly announced pursuant to Articles 30 and 32 of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act as the land for harbors, green areas, roads, etc., which are public facilities prescribed in Article 2 subparag. 13 of the National Land Planning Act and Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree

When examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, 50/100 of the property tax, etc. should be reduced in accordance with the mitigation provision of this case, since the land of this case meets all the requirements for mitigation stipulated in the mitigation provision of this case. Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing the property tax, etc. without applying the mitigation provision of this case, there is a significant and apparent defect in the instant disposition of this case.

B. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the erroneous premise that it is difficult to deem that there was no room for dispute over the interpretation of the mitigation provision of this case solely on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, that the instant disposition cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the invalidation of the taxation disposition, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)