The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that even the idle land, etc. subject to the imposition of land excess profit tax shall not be deemed idle land, etc. for the period as determined by the Presidential Decree, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), for the land falling under the idle land, etc. due to the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes after the acquisition of the land, the collapse of buildings on the ground, or other inevitable reasons as determined by the Presidential Decree, and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13198 of Dec. 31, 190 and amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192) provides that the period of construction under the provisions of Article 23 of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Decree") shall be deemed to be more than the date of completion of construction under the provisions of subparagraph 3 of the same Article (limited to the land on which no building is settled) and the period of construction under Article 2519 of the same Ordinance shall be deemed to be determined retroactively as the period of the Act.

Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Decree provides that "Where a building is not settled on the ground for the purpose of constructing a new building pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the Act, and only one year from the date of acquisition (if construction permission or construction work is restricted within such period, the limited period shall be added thereto)" with respect to unavoidable reasons and period which do not constitute idle land, etc. In addition, Article 23 subparag. 2 of the Decree provides that "by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy shall prescribe matters necessary for the determination of idle land, etc., even if Article 25 (2) of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy is delegated to the owner of the building, it shall be deemed that no more than three years have passed since the date of acquisition of the land for the purpose of newly constructing a new building, and it shall be deemed that no more than three years have passed since the date of acquisition of the land for the purpose of constructing a new building, the construction period of which is prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy."

2. In the case of this case, the court below decided that Article 20 (2) of the "Rules" was null and void if the facts were the same as the court below legally confirmed, and the court below decided that the land of this case was subject to taxation only on December 31, 199 of the Act since the date after December 30, 190, when the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the purpose of constructing a new building, since the land of this case was considered to have passed one year from the date of acquisition under paragraph (4) of the Addenda of the "Decree", and the land of this case constitutes idle land, etc. prescribed in the "Act", and only one day from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 190, which is the whole taxable period, was just and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as in the theory of

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

Chief Justice Yoon-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho