Criteria for determining whether the construction or use of land constitutes "unauthorized land" under subparagraph 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act.

The determination of whether the land is inappropriate for construction or use in technology or economic aspects in view of the location and shape of the land prescribed in subparagraph 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act shall be made based on objective technology and economic feasibility.

Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act Article 78-3 No. 10

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu639 Decided April 9, 1985

Plaintiff

Pool Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu74 delivered on December 11, 1984

Of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant revoking the property tax and defense detailed and disposition from time to time in 1983 on October 10, 1983 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal on the dismissed appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

1. According to the statement of the defendant's written appeal, the defendant can be found to have filed an appeal against the entire judgment of the court below. However, upon examining the appellate brief submitted by the defendant, the court below did not state the grounds for calculating the amount of tax and did not state the grounds for appeal as to the revoked judgment on September 10, 1983 and did not state the grounds for appeal (the appellate brief does not state any grounds for appeal). Thus, the appeal against the above judgment in accordance with Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be dismissed.

2. Next, we examine the grounds of appeal as to the cancellation of occasional property tax and defense detailed and disposition on October 1983, 1983, which is the remaining portion of the appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land in this case was not constructed or used before February 28, 1983, and the land in this case was inappropriate for construction or use before February 28, 1983, and the land was not constructed or used under Articles 139 and 142 (1) 1 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the land was not constructed or used under the provisions of Article 78-3 subparagraph 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and was excluded from the public land of Article 78-3 subparagraph 10 of the same Enforcement Decree.

However, Article 78-3 subparag. 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 310, Apr. 9, 1985) provides that even if a certain land satisfies the requirements for public notice, if construction or use is deemed an objective location and form of the land, and if construction or use is technically inappropriate or lacks economic feasibility, the land owner cannot be expected to be constructed or used, the purpose of legislation is to exclude it from the public notice subject to heavy taxation. Therefore, the determination of whether it falls under this shall be based on objective technology and economic feasibility (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu639, Apr.

According to the reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning, it is difficult to readily conclude that the above land was inappropriate to construct or use the above land on the technical or economic surface. If the lower court did not reject evidence Nos. 3-2, 5-2, 7-2, 9-2, and 12-2 of evidence Nos. 3-3, 5-2, and the testimony, etc. of Nonparty 1, the lower court, based on the following facts: (a) it is difficult to view the above land as inappropriate to construct or use the above land on the surface of 50 meters away from the above land on the surface of 1977, prior to the acquisition of the above land; and (b) it is difficult to find the lower court to use the above land on the surface of 3,000 square meters away from the above land on the surface of 50 meters away from the above land on the surface of 1979; and (c) it is difficult to newly construct the above land on the north 1,000 square meters away from the above land on the construction site.

3. Accordingly, of the judgment of the court below, the part against the defendant revoking the property tax, defense detailed and disposition on October 10, 1983 from time to time in 1983 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal on this part shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)