(a) Whether it is excluded from the vacant land where construction is substantially impossible because no confirmation is made by the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong, etc., but the suspension is known (affirmative);

(b) Appropriateness of disposition of imposition of urban planning tax on land under execution of a land readjustment project even though a replotting disposition is not yet announced (negative)

A. In the event that the land was originally used as the original answer was incorporated within the land readjustment project district and the suspended construction was completed in the form, but it was impossible to construct agricultural products in fact due to lack of good offices, etc. at the time of the disposition of this case, if crops were planted until the time of the disposition of this case, it cannot be said that the land excluded from the official land due to lack of proof by the confirmation of the fact in the farmland tax ledger or the farmland tax ledger and the Eup/Myeon

B. The disposition imposing urban planning tax on the land for which a land readjustment project is being implemented but for which no land substitution disposition has been publicly announced at the time of taxation is unlawful.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 142(1)1(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3(10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu240 Decided March 10, 1981, 81Nu353 Decided April 13, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu143 Decided April 12, 1983

Plaintiff

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu173 delivered on January 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant litigation performer are examined together.

The judgment of the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff cultivated the land as dry field by making it difficult for the plaintiff to cultivate dry field in accordance with the actual condition of the land since it acquired the land as dry field from July 26, 1969, and it was incorporated into a land readjustment project district in 1974 and completed construction work in the form of a land reconstruction project district in May 6, 1975, but actually, it cannot be used as a site for construction due to defects in the construction work, such as main roads, water supply and drainage system, etc., after 1976, and it cannot be found that the non-party cultivated the land as dry field due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be found that there was an error of law in the determination of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, and since this land was impossible to be constructed as above, the court below excluded from the opinion that the plaintiff raised agricultural crops as dry field from 300,000 won and the land was not established by the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong 184.

2. The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

The court below determined that the disposition imposing urban planning tax on the land of this case for which a disposition of replotting has not been publicly announced under the provisions of Article 235 (1) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2945 of Dec. 31, 1976) and Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8339 of Dec. 31, 1976) is unlawful, since the land of this case is in dispute and the execution of a land readjustment project is in progress, but the land of this case has not been publicly announced until the time of the disposition of this case taxation. Such fact-finding and decision of the court below are just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory

3. The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

We cannot accept the conclusion of the judgment of the court below on the premise that the court below did not recognize it.

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

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)