[재산세등부과처분취소][공1985.11.15.(764),1447]
The meaning of Article 142 (1) 16 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act "the date on which construction is possible because the project is completed in the unit of partition."
Article 142 (1) 1-6 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "the date on which construction can be constructed as a unit of partition is completed," refers to the date on which the construction can be constructed as a result of the completion of the unit of partition by the land readjustment project, etc., so even though the construction of a building is not actually impossible due to the completion of the construction of the unit of partition, the construction of a building cannot be legally enforced on such site if there is no main distribution facility that connects sewerage or other drainage facilities, even though the construction of a building is not actually impossible due to the completion of the construction of the unit of partition. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the construction of a building can be constructed when the main distribution facility
Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 142 (1) 1 and 6 (C)
Supreme Court Decision 84Nu580 Delivered on November 27, 1984
Law Firm Hong-sung, Attorney Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant in charge of the doctoral al.
Head of Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu
Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu230 delivered on April 24, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
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 construction can be completed as the unit of partition unit is actually completed and the construction of the building is possible" refers to the date on which the construction can be completed by the completion of the unit of partition unit. Thus, even if the construction of the building is not practically impossible due to the completion of the land suspension work and the construction of the road facilities, it is not possible to legally enforce the construction of the building on the land, so it is reasonable to view that the construction of the building can be constructed when the main distribution facility is completed in addition to the completion of the road facilities.
In this case, the court below determined that the land in this case is located in the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) and Seo-gu 1, 2985 square meters (Seoul Special Metropolitan City No. 1 land) on September 13, 1975 and ( Address 2 omitted) 1537 square meters (Seoul Special Metropolitan City No. 2000, Oct. 7, 1976) on the land in the Seo-gu Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City No. 1 omitted) which was implemented in Daegu Special Metropolitan City, and the land in this case was not constructed at all after completion of each road construction work on Oct. 7, 1976, and there is no evidence to support the completion of the ex post facto multi-line drainage facilities, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land in this case's holding period from Sep. 13, 1975, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above land.
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)