[재산세등부과처분취소][공1989.10.1.(857),1382]
The meaning of "the date on which construction is possible because the project is actually completed in a unit of partition" under Article 142 (1) 16 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1986).
"The date on which construction is possible after the actual completion of a unit of partition" under Article 142 (1) 16 Item 6 Item (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1986) means the time when construction is completed even before the public notice of a disposition of replotting is given, and at least the time the construction of the building is completed, in addition to the completion of the suspension work for the land within the demarcated rearrangement zone, it shall be deemed that the construction of the road facility and the line distribution facility are completed to the extent that the legal enforcement is good.
Enforcement Decree of the Gu Local Tax Act (before the repeal of December 31, 1986) Article 142(1)1 Item 6(C)(C)
Supreme Court Decision 85Nu9 delivered on August 20, 1985, 86Nu209 Delivered on January 20, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 86Nu906 Delivered on June 23, 1987
Plaintiff
The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu552 delivered on January 23, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
As to the Grounds of Appeal:
Article 142 (1) 1-6 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3584, Dec. 31, 1986; hereinafter "the date on which construction is possible after the actual completion of a unit of partition" means the time when construction is completed even before a disposition of replotting is publicly announced, and at least the time the construction of a building is completed, in addition to the completion of the suspension work for the land within a demarcated rearrangement zone, it shall be deemed that the construction of a building is completed to the extent that it is good for legal enforcement (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu209, Jan. 20, 1987; 86Nu906, Jun. 23, 1987).
In accordance with the above opinion of party members, it is proper that the court below determined that the land of this case, which was located within five years from the date the payment period of the property tax for the second term of February 1986 of this case, was excluded from the public land, from the time after the land of this case was partially suspended construction at the time of the disposition of replotting due to the land readjustment project, but did not have sewage treatment facilities, etc.
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)