등기부상 토지의 소유자 아닌 자를 소유자로 오인하여 한 종합토지세부과처분이 당연무효임[국패]
Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu38966 (No. 24, 1998)
A disposition imposing aggregate land tax shall be null and void immediately, which misleads a person other than the owner of the land on the register as owner.
If a registration is made as not the owner of land in a certified copy of the register as of the assessment basis date of the disposition imposing the aggregate land tax, it can be clearly known that the tax authority is not the owner of the land, and thus the mistake of a person who is not the owner of the land should be deemed to be apparent that the
Article 234-9 of the Local Tax Act, Article 234-21 of the Local Tax Act
Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Whether a disposition imposing the aggregate land tax is automatically null and void, which misleads a person who is not a landowner on the register as an owner (affirmative)
If it is registered as the owner of land on the register of the land as of the assessment basis date of the disposition imposing the aggregate land tax, it can be clearly known that the tax authority is not the owner of the land. Therefore, the mistake of a person who is not the owner of the land as the owner of the land should be deemed to be obvious
Articles 234-9 (1) and 234-21 (1) and (5) of the Local Tax Act, Article 104-18 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Plaintiff, Appellant and Korean Culture Promotion Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Hanma, Attorney Cha Sung-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant, Appellant, Gyeonggi-do Gun (Attorney Shin Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu38966 delivered on June 24, 1998
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
1. The grounds of appeal as to the main claim are first examined.
"A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the defendant sought the invalidity of the disposition of this case as the plaintiff's main claim, and found that the actual owner of the land in question is the plaintiff and imposed the aggregate land tax, etc. of this case on the land other than 12 parcels in the name of the plaintiff among the land in 382 parcels in the judgment at the time of the tax base date of this case, excluding the 12 parcels in the name of the plaintiff, which is subject to the registration of ownership transfer, among the land in the 382 parcels in the judgment of this case. The court below held that the disposition of this case as to the land in question is not necessarily null and void because the plaintiff actually owns the land in question on the ground that there are objective circumstances to mislead the actual owner of the land in question as the plaintiff as the plaintiff, and even if the defect of the disposition of this case is serious for the reason of the judgment, the defect can be accurately examined and clarified." However, the judgment of the court below
(1) As of the assessment basis date of the aggregate land tax, a person who actually owns land as of the aggregate land tax shall be liable to pay the aggregate land tax. (Article 234-9(1) of the Local Tax Act provides that a person who actually owns it may be taxed on the owner without registration after the change of ownership was made. In fact, in order to identify the owner, the owner of the land was required to report to the head of Si/Gun having jurisdiction over the location of the land within 10 days from the assessment basis date in the event that the registration was not implemented on the land in question (Article 234-21(1) of the Local Tax Act). If the report is not consistent with the facts or is not filed, the head of Si/Gun may investigate it ex officio and register it on the tax ledger (Article 234-21(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act).
(2) In the instant case, there is no evidence to show that the owner of the land at issue reported the change of ownership to the Plaintiff, or that the Defendant, ex officio, recognized the Plaintiff as the owner of the land at issue, and registered the Plaintiff on the aggregate land tax ledger and notified the Plaintiff of the registered facts, and thus, the Defendant did not recognize the Plaintiff as the actual owner of the land at issue and did not take the instant disposition of imposition, but did not mislead the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff, thereby leading the Plaintiff to mistake
(3) However, according to the records, it can be known that the owner of the land at issue as of the tax base date of the instant disposition is registered as a person who is not the plaintiff. Thus, it can be clearly known that the owner of the land at issue is not the plaintiff. Thus, the mistake of the plaintiff as the owner of the land at issue should be deemed clear that the defect is externally apparent.
(4) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below as otherwise stated above is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation of the disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.
2. The following conjunctive claims shall be viewed as an appeal.
The judgment of the court below on the conjunctive claim, which is premised on the acceptance of the primary claim, cannot be maintained as long as the judgment of the court below on the primary claim is reversed on the ground that it is erroneous to accept the primary claim, so this part of the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.
3. Therefore, all of the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)