[재산세부과처분취소][공1985.9.1.(759),1137]
The meaning of Article 142 (1) 1-6 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act "....." Project is actually completed in a unit of partition and it is possible to construct."
Article 142 Paragraph (1) Item 1 Item 6 Item (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act "the date on which construction is possible as the unit of partition is completed in fact" refers to the date on which construction is possible because the construction is restricted due to the completion of the unit of partition by the land readjustment project, etc.
Article 142 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act
Plaintiff
The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu435 delivered on March 4, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 142 Paragraph (1) Item 1 Item 6 Item (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act "the date on which the construction of the building is possible after the actual completion of the division unit is completed" refers to the date on which the construction of the building is possible by the completion of the division unit, such as the land readjustment project. Thus, even if the construction of the building is not practically impossible due to the completion of the suspension of the construction of the building, the construction of the building cannot be legally enforced on the land if there is no drainage system that connects sewerage or other drainage facilities, even though the construction of the building is not actually impossible, it is reasonable to view that the construction of the building can be constructed at the time of the completion of the cross-section distribution system in addition to the completion of the construction of the
In this case, the court below recognized the fact that the land in this case was neglected without any fixtures on the ground until the beginning date of February 1983, since it is clearly clear that the designation of the land scheduled for substitution was made on April 29, 1972 and around December 31, 1979, when the main road was installed in the vicinity of the land zone subject to the land substitution and rearrangement project, and around December 27, 1979, when the main road of the land was installed in the vicinity of the zone subject to the land substitution and rearrangement project, and there was a completion of the arterial distribution system of sewage, etc. on December 31, 1980. The court below determined that the land in this case was not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.
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 Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)