2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

2. Preliminary revocation of the disposition of imposition of paragraph (1).

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if there is no counter-proofs in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 4, 2, 5, 6-1, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, respectively.

A. The plaintiff was designated as an urban planning zone under the Urban Planning Act on August 31, 1989 and implemented a land readjustment project after obtaining an establishment establishment and project implementation authorization under Articles 9 and 16 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act on May 23, 1990 with respect to the land of the Nowon-gu, Seongbuk-dong and Yang-dong, and the land of the exchange dong, which was approved for the decision of the land readjustment project and the cadastral decision of the land readjustment project.

B. At the time of authorization of a replotting plan for the land within the above project execution area, the land was authorized as the land for public facilities, such as parks, facility greenbelts, school sites, etc., and the reserved land not designated as a land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay and land substitution.

C. Accordingly, on November 10, 201, the defendant found that among the land of this case, the land owned by the plaintiff for the pertinent taxable year is erroneous in calculating the total of 42,121,240 won from 198 to 201, the total of 13,986,50 won of urban planning tax, the total of 88,424,160 won of local education tax, and the total of 66,318,060 won of special rural education tax (hereinafter referred to as the "previous disposition of this case"), 207, 306, 306, 306, 468, 208, 306, 205, 306, 306, 306, 306, 405, 196, 208, 306, 196, 205, 306, 196, 205, 1964, 1965, 18.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs on June 27, 2002 after filing an objection against the previous disposition of this case, and then withdrawn the request for review of defects against notification that the head of the Northern-si Office revoked the previous disposition of this case on July 15, 2002.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

(A) The primary claim

The disposition of this case is a taxation already conducted in the status of the previous disposition on the same taxable object, which constitutes double disposition or double taxation, even though the head of North Korea under the jurisdiction of the defendant, revoked the previous disposition of this case on July 15, 2002, but it is difficult to view that the defect was cured because the subordinate agency could not revoke the administrative disposition of this case. Thus, the defect is significant and obvious.

(B) Preliminary Claim

(3) In the event that the head of the Si/Gun/Gu imposes tax on the land of this case under the provisions of Article 234-9(1) of the Local Tax Act, the person liable for tax payment is the actual owner of the land, regardless of whether or not the person actually owning the land is the owner of the land. In light of the above legislative purpose and character of the aggregate land tax, the Plaintiff, who was authorized as a land substitution plan and owned the land of this case as the owner of the land of this case, is in the position of managing the land of this case as a temporary owner of the land of this case, and cannot be deemed as the owner of the land of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having been in the actual owner of the land of this case under the premise that the Plaintiff is the actual owner of the land of this case under the provisions of Article 234-9(1)6 of the former Local Tax Act, and thus, the tax official of this case bears the duty to pay the aggregate land tax of this case under the provisions of Article 14-9(2)6 of the Local Tax Act.

(2) The defendant's assertion

(A) The primary claim

On May 30, 2002, the Defendant rendered a full reduction decision in the meaning of revoking the previous disposition, and issued the instant disposition on June 10 of the same year, but the head of Si/Gu north-si, which was delegated with the Defendant’s authority, notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the previous disposition on July 15, 2002. Thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as duplicate disposition, on the ground that the instant disposition did not contain significant and apparent defects, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course.

(B) Preliminary Claim

The notice of tax payment of the instant disposition was served on June 10, 202 on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendant on September 16, 2002, which was the 90-day period for filing an objection under Article 73 of the Local Tax Act, with the lapse of the 90-day period for filing an objection under Article 73 (a) of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is illegal as being filed without due process. Even if it is lawful for domestic affairs, the instant disposition is lawful in light of the details

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Judgment on the main claim

On the other hand, the standard time for determining whether a tax disposition is duplicate in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax disposition is the time of closing of argument. If the tax authority imposed a tax disposition on the same taxable object several times, but revoked all the remaining tax disposition except that which was the object of the lawsuit before the date of closing of argument, and notified the plaintiff as the taxpayer, the original tax disposition is revoked, and the tax disposition which was the object of the lawsuit eventually remains at the time of closing of argument, and the tax disposition which was the object of the lawsuit remains at the time of closing of argument, and is not a legal disadvantage to the taxpayer due to the revoked tax disposition, so it cannot be viewed as a double disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7830, Oct. 24, 1997).

On May 30, 2002, the defendant decided to reduce the whole amount of the previous disposition of this case on May 30, 2002, and issued the previous disposition of this case on June 10 of the same year, but the head of Si/Gun/Gu, who was delegated the defendant's authority pursuant to the provisions of Article 4 of the Local Tax Act, notified the plaintiff of the cancellation of the previous disposition of this case on July 15, 2002. Since the previous disposition of this case was revoked before the date of the lawsuit of this case and only the previous disposition of this case remains as at the time of the closing of argument, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Determination on the conjunctive claim

(1) Determination on this safety defense

Article 78(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 637, Dec. 29, 2001); however, with respect to the disposition of imposition of tax under the Local Tax Act, it was possible to file an administrative suit after all the procedures for filing an objection and a request for review. However, with respect to the deletion of the above provision, the administrative appeal became able to file an administrative suit even after the request for review was made voluntarily. However, the period for filing an administrative lawsuit under Article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Act was limited. As seen above, the instant disposition was placed in the state of overlapping disposition until the revocation of the previous disposition on July 15, 2002 by the head of Si/Mag-si, North Korea, in which the instant disposition and any of the previous dispositions in this case were placed in an uncertain and uncertain state. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff received the notice of the instant disposition on June 10, 2002, it is reasonable to deem that the period for filing an objection could not be filed by the Plaintiff after the removal of the above disposition.

However, according to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of this case on September 16, 2002. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff lawfully filed an objection from July 15, 2002, where the status of the plaintiff's overlapping disposition, etc. was removed before 90 days, which is the period for filing an objection under the Local Tax Act, from July 15, 2002. Thus, the defendant's defense of this safety is without merit

(2) Judgment on the merits

(A) Determination on the first argument

In Article 234-9 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, the person who actually owns the land under the provisions of Article 234-8 as of the aggregate land tax assessment basis date shall be liable to pay the aggregate land tax: Provided, That in the case of co-owned land, the person having the right to share (if there is no indication of share, the share shall be deemed equal) shall be liable to pay the aggregate land tax, and in Article 234-9 (2) of the same Act, the person falling under any of the following subparagraphs as of the tax base date for aggregate land tax shall be liable to pay the aggregate land tax, and in Article 234-9 (2) 6 of the same Act, the person shall be liable to pay the aggregate land tax.

However, if a land substitution plan is designated as a land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay or a land reserved for reservation in the land substitution plan, the right to use and benefit from the land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay belongs to the project implementer or the implementer may dispose of it to the third party from the time when the land was appropriated for expenses incurred in the urban development project or when other implementation plans are set. As seen above, the plaintiff continued to be in the position of the land substitution project implementer under the former Land Readjustment Project Act during the taxable period of the disposition of this case, and the land in this case is not designated as a land substitution but as a land secured by the authorities in recompense of development outlay or a land reserved for reservation, so it is clear that the plaintiff becomes the taxpayer under Article 234-9 (2) 6 of the former Local Tax Act as to the land in this case, and the person falling under Article 234-9

(2) Judgment on the second argument

Article 234-11 (2) of the Local Tax Act provides that no aggregate land tax shall be imposed on the land used by the State, a local government, or a local government association for public use for at least one year. Thus, considering the whole purport of the oral argument as to whether the Defendant has used the land in this case for at least one year, the Plaintiff started construction of 7 children’s park and 1 facilities in neighboring parks around October 1996 and completed construction of the above park facilities around May 28, 2002 and transferred the facilities management to the Defendant only on May 2003. Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff used the above land in this case or the local government association for public use for at least 1 year from 198 to 201, which is the taxable period for this case’s taxation, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff used the land in this case for public use. Accordingly, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff used the above land in this case’s period of taxation.

(3) Judgment on the third argument

First, as to the allegation that the instant disposition was unlawful because the Defendant did not deliver documents containing the contents of the taxpayers’ rights charter while investigating the land-sale disposition ledger and the land-sale recompense book used for the instant disposition, and did not notify the Plaintiff of the investigation seven days prior to the investigation, etc., and thus violated Articles 65(2)2 and 68 of the Local Tax Act, the instant disposition was revoked without undergoing the procedure for adjustment of the amount of tax under Article 234-19 of the Local Tax Act, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the instant disposition was unlawful even if the Defendant did not follow the procedure under Articles 65(2)2 and 68 of the Local Tax Act in imposing the instant disposition.

Next, when the defendant notifies the plaintiff of the disposition of this case, in light of the purport of the argument that the disposition of this case is unlawful because it did not specify the basis for calculation of the tax amount, the defendant used the standard form used at the time of notification of the aggregate land tax, etc. when notifying the plaintiff of the disposition of this case, and the fact that the ground for imposition of the tax amount and the basis for calculation are printed in the same text. Thus, the disposition of this case does not contain procedural errors.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is lawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is without merit, and all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yellow-ho (Presiding Judge)