[1] In imposing land excess profit tax, whether the current status of the land subject to imposition should be verified and examined, and the facts examined and the ground for disposition should be stated in the disposition of imposition (negative)

[2] Whether an employee's temporary lodging is a building without permission equipped with simple cooking utensils without dividing the room, floor, kitchen, etc. (negative), and whether the land annexed to the unauthorized building can be excluded from idle land, etc. on the ground that it is the land annexed to the housing (negative)

[1] In imposing land excess profit tax, there is no legal basis to view that the current status of the land subject to imposition should be verified and investigated, and then the investigated facts and the basis for disposition should be stated in the disposition of imposition.

[2] When engaging in the business of manufacturing blocks by leasing land, the employees were in a temporary lodging place and had the employees manage the place of business without permission while living in that place. In the above building, only a simple cooking room was installed without dividing the room, floor, kitchen, etc. on the above land. Since only 3 buildings without permission exist on the above land, the above fact alone has a residential shape that is deemed to be used for residential purposes under the social norms, and there is insufficient evidence to recognize that the employees were actually being used for residential purposes, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the employees were actually being used for residential purposes, it cannot be deemed as a temporary lodging house for the management of the place of business. Accordingly, the above land constitutes land subject to taxation of land excess regardless of whether the boundary is finalized by fence or fence, etc., because it constitutes land annexed to the building without permission under Article 8 (1) 4 (c) of the Land Excess Acquisition Tax Act, not land annexed to the building.

[1] Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes / [2] Article 8 (1) 4 of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Attorneys Hong Hong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Namgu Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu10608 delivered on October 10, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

In imposing the land excess profit tax, there is no legal basis to view that the current status of the land subject to imposition should be verified and investigated, and then the fact of the investigation and the basis for disposition should be stated in the imposition disposition.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of the legal principles or incomplete deliberation under Article 16 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, as alleged in the

The first ground for appeal is without merit.

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on evidence, that ① in the building management ledger of this case, the building of this case was registered with a block structure 25.92 square meters, and on the survey result map, the building of this case was 142 square meters, 41 square meters, and 37 square meters in a house. The court below held that since April 1, 1985, Nonparty 1, who leased the land of this case from the plaintiffs, engaged in the business of manufacturing blocks with the trade name of floating stone, and had Nonparty 2, an employee of this case, live in the temporary lodging place and manage the place of business without permission, and the building was located only in a simple kitchen 40 square meters without dividing the kitchen, floor, side, etc. The building of this case, the building of this case, which was registered on the building management ledger, did not exist, and the building of this case did not constitute the land attached to this case without permission, and thus, it did not constitute the land attached to the building of this case, which can be deemed to be used for residential purposes.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out in the grounds of appeal.

The ground of appeal No. 2 is without merit.

On the third ground for appeal

As seen earlier, inasmuch as the area of the building above is not recognized as a house with 3 220 square meters without permission on the instant land, it cannot be excluded from the idle land, and the land excess profit tax is imposed on the basis of the parcel of land. In addition, the instant disposition is based on the land corresponding to ①, ② the land is deemed as the land falling under Article 8(1)4 and (c) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, and thus, in such a case, there is no ground to impose the land excess profit tax only on the portion of the idle land exceeding 660 square meters after deducting 660 square meters for each landowner.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in violation of the legal principles as to idle land, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The ground of appeal No. 3 is without merit.

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

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)