[재산세부과처분취소][집33(3)특,267;공1985.11.1.(763),1352]
Whether land used as a simple parking lot continuously without permission for the establishment of an off-road parking lot falls under the vacant land stipulated in Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981) (negative)
If a simple parking lot is installed on land and operates the parking lot business at the district tax office, and the value-added tax is paid accordingly, it shall be deemed to be the case where the above land is actually being used. Thus, even though the permission for an off-road parking lot under Article 78-3 subparagraph 4 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369 of March 25, 1982) was not obtained for the above land, it shall not be deemed to be the public land under Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of December 31, 1981).
Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981), Article 78-3 subparagraph 4 (3) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369 of Mar. 25, 1982)
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu367 delivered on September 11, 1984; 83Nu197 delivered on April 9, 1985
Attorney Yang Chang-soo, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu338 delivered on March 14, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Based on its reasoning, the judgment of the court below determined that the plaintiffs' prior-party, a simplified parking lot on the ground of 222 square meters in the aggregate of this case, operated the parking lot business, registered as a business and paid the value-added tax accordingly on Mapo Tax Office under the jurisdiction of Sep. 30, 197. On November 17, 1980, the fact that the plaintiffs continued to operate the parking lot business after filing a simplified parking lot report with the defendant, and defined the land site, factory site, school site, and miscellaneous land in the area as stipulated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs under Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as the site, factory site, school site, and miscellaneous land in the area as stipulated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and if the actual use of the above land is recognized, it cannot be deemed as the land that falls under the category of public land, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as illegal under the premise that the above land was not used temporarily.
In light of the records, the above measures of the judgment of the court below are just in accordance with the purport of the judgment of the court below 82Nu367 delivered on September 11, 1984, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, and the precedents of the party members of the city at the time of novel do not constitute an appropriate precedent for the case where there is a different circumstance.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit, 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 Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)