[2] The case holding that the land grade decision is null and void due to the lack of notification of land grade decision

[3] In a case where a landowner becomes aware of the contents before or after the determination of land grade or the result of regular rating adjustment has been made available for perusal by the landowner, etc. each year after the determination of land grade, whether the defect of individual notice is cured (negative)

[2] The case holding that in case where the land category column, the land grade and grade column before the decision, and the land grade and grade column due to the decision are stated in the column of land category column, the land classification column, the land grade and grade column before the decision, and the land grade and grade column corresponding to 2542 land, it cannot be deemed that the notification of the decision of land grade was given, and that the remaining land grade determination for the land is an invalid disposition which cannot be effective, since it cannot be deemed that the notification of the decision of land grade has been made with respect to the remaining land except 2542 land at the same time

[3] As long as a land grade decision is null and void because it cannot be deemed that there exists an individual notice of the land grade decision, even if the landowner knew of the land grade decision before or after the decision, or if the result of a regular rating adjustment was offered for perusal by the landowner, etc. after the decision, the defect of the individual notice is not cured.

It is reasonable to interpret that individual notice in lieu of the perusal of the contents of the land grade determination under Article 43(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 668 of Dec. 30, 1995) is an effective requirement for land grade determination. Thus, if such a procedure is omitted, the decision cannot be externally effective (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1476 delivered on Nov. 27, 1992). The purport of allowing the owner of land to give such individual notice is to inform the owner of the details of the land grade determination or modification in detail so that the owner may know the details of the land grade determination in detail, and to specify the land subject to the land grade determination so that he/she may state the newly determined land grade in detail, and to specify the newly determined land grade.

According to the facts established by the court below, as of September 1, 1989, the defendant decided to set or revise the grade of some land among the land owned by the plaintiff, which was used as the site for a golf course in Seogyeong-dong in Jeju-do and notified it individually, the land location column of the notice of land grade adjustment shall be stated as "Fech 2542", and land category column, land grade and grade column before the decision, and land grade and grade column due to the decision shall be stated as the above 2542 land and notified the plaintiff. Such individual notice shall be written as to the remaining land excluding the above 2542 land, and it shall be written as an unlawful notice because it is impossible to know how the determination of grade is made, and it shall be written as to the following land, namely, the plaintiff has owned other tourism complexes other than the land which was used as the site for a golf course in Jungmun-dong and the land which was determined as the land other than the above grade No. 2 and the land which was determined as the land other than the above grade No. 4 of the above land.

In addition, so long as the land grade decision is null and void because it cannot be deemed that there exists individual notice of the land grade decision, even if the landowner knew of the contents of the land grade decision before or after the decision, or even if the result of regular rating adjustment was made every year after the decision, the defect of the individual notice of this case is not cured (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu986 delivered on March 22, 198).

Although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning, its conclusion is just because it is the same purport, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to individual notice of land grade decision, and the judgments cited by appellant are different from this case, and thus it is not appropriate to invoke this case. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)