The meaning of "area or district in which construction is permitted only for buildings meeting the purpose of designating the area or district under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act.

The term "area or district in which construction is allowed only for buildings meeting the purpose of designating the area or district, etc. under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes" in subparagraph 1 (ii) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act shall include the area or district in which construction permission is limited to buildings meeting the purpose of designation due to the designation of the area or district, etc. under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the area or district in which construction permission is limited to buildings meeting the purpose of designation of the area or district, etc. under the provisions of the statutes,

Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu402 decided Feb. 6, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Subparagraph 1 (2) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act provides that "land within an area or district where a construction permit is granted only for a building meeting the purpose of designating such an area or district under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, and for which two years have not elapsed since such designation date, shall be deemed as one of the land which is prohibited or restricted from being constructed and used, and an area where a construction of housing below the second floor is allowed shall be excluded. Here, an area or district where a construction permit is granted only for a building meeting the purpose of designating such an area or district under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, with the designation of an area or district under the designation of an area or district under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, and an area or district for which a construction permit is limited only to the building meeting the purpose of designating such an area or district under the delegation of the Act and subordinate statutes, and it is reasonable to view that the building permit is granted only for 3 years from the date of its designation and 4 years from the date of its establishment, and it shall also be interpreted in accordance with Article 17 and 18-35 of the Building Act.

Even if land does not fall under land to be excluded from public land until before the previous time, if the prohibition or restriction of construction under the laws and regulations newly occurs and the requirements of Article 78-3 subparag. 1 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act are met, it shall be considered land to be excluded from public land from public land. Since there is no ground or reason under the law excluding the application thereof, such land does not fall under land to be excluded from public land before May 4, 1983, such as theory, and it cannot be deemed that it does not fall under land to be excluded from public land because it is merely a new prohibition of construction of houses with up to two floors, etc. under the provisions of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Building Ordinance amended from May 4, 1983 and enforced from May 4, 1983, and Article 78-3 subparag. 1 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act does not stipulate land to be excluded from public land only within the area or district where construction of all buildings is prohibited. Thus, it is clear that it cannot be excluded from public land within public land.

2. The court below is just in holding that the land in this case falls under the land to be excluded from the vacant land stipulated in subparagraph 1 (ii) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act as of the starting date of the payment deadline of the property tax, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the public land or incomplete hearing, or lack of reasoning.

3. Therefore, the appeal is 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 judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)