[재산세등부과처분취소][공1988.1.15.(816),190]
Whether or not permission under Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act shall be obtained in order to implement a project in which a private person intends to develop a land in an amusement park.
A project that intends to comprehensively develop land located within an amusement park as an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, which constitutes an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, and thus is not an administrative agency but a private person who is not an administrative agency, shall obtain permission pursuant to Article 24 of the same Act, and as long as such permission is not obtained, a project that comprehensively develops the land as an amusement park shall not be deemed a project permitted or authorized by an administrative agency under Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 120
Article 42 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986), Article 24 of the Urban Planning Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1266 delivered on July 1, 1987
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The court below held that the plaintiff company's land was 1 and 3 years after the 1968. 28th anniversary of the public notice of the 1968. 8th 28th 1966, and that the 196th 1th 1th 6th 6th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 8th 6th 6th 1966, and that the plaintiff company acquired the ownership of the land of this case reclaimed after obtaining a license for reclamation of public waters in Yongsan-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) and the 2nd 3th 8th 9th 196th 1th 196th 16th 8th 6th 196th 16th 6th 1966th 3th 1966th 3th 1966th 3th 1966th 3th 1966th 198. 3th 1983
2. However, if a business that comprehensively develops the land of this case, which is obvious in the records that is located within an urban planning zone, falls under an urban planning project under the Urban Planning Act, and is not an administrative agency but a plaintiff company intends to implement it, it shall obtain permission pursuant to Article 24 of the same Act, and unless the above permission is obtained, the business that comprehensively develops the land of this case as an amusement park shall not be deemed a business permitted or authorized by an administrative agency under Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. However, as recognized by the court below, the plaintiff's application for approval of the comprehensive amusement park development plan for the land of this case to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 14, 1983 for the approval of the comprehensive amusement park development plan for the land of this case cannot be seen as a business that comprehensively develops the land of this case as an amusement park under Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and it cannot be seen as a document for the above public notice to implement the urban planning project.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the nature of the above amusement park development project and the legal principles as to the permission method for the implementation of the urban planning project to a person who is not an administrative agency, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the sole basis of the fact that there was No. 445 of the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City notification, that the plaintiff obtained the permission of the amusement park development project for the land of this case.
3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)