Whether it is a suspension of official business in case where the land where ornamental trees have been planted is not proven by the confirmation of facts in the farmland tax ledger or the farmland tax ledger or the farmland inspection committee and the Eup/Myeon/Dong (negative)

If the owner of land has planted ornamental trees on his land, it cannot be said that the land is not the land that is excluded from the official land because there is no proof of such fact by the confirmation of the fact in the farmland tax ledger, the farmland tax ledger, or the farmland inspection committee and the Eup/Myeon/Dong concerned.

Article 142 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu71 Delivered on December 13, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 87Gu68 delivered on December 17, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that 2,312.27 square meters of land 5,537 square meters on two parcels of land in the original city owned jointly by the plaintiff and the non-party constitutes a vacant land as provided in Article 188 (1) 1 Item 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986). In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the land was publically divided, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the plaintiff's land was actually owned, on the premise that the plaintiff actually owned a specific portion by an agreement with the non-party. The appeal that the land owned by the plaintiff constitutes a land excluded from the land where the part owned by the plaintiff was actually owned by the non-party, on the ground that the court below did not assert

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in making a decision on the plaintiff's assertion that the land in this case at the time of original markets is not suitable for construction or use in the technology or economy because it falls under the land not suitable for construction or use in the technology or economy, the court below recognized the facts in its decision and decided that the land shall not be excluded from the fair land. Thus, according to the records, the above fact finding and decision of the court below are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since around September 1973, the plaintiff planted about 2/3 of the site among the land in the original city from around the original city, such as ice fice trees, steel bamboo bamboo trees, nesf trees, steel flasing trees, steel flasing trees, etc., but since there is no evidence as to the fact that the above fact was proved by the farmland tax tax ledger or the farmland investigation committee and the head of the Dong, it cannot be viewed as the land to be excluded from the official land.

However, as decided by the court below, if the plaintiff planted ornamental trees from September 1973 to the time of the tax disposition in this case, it cannot be said that the land excluded from the official land due to the lack of proof by the confirmation of the fact by the farmland tax assessment ledger, the farmland investigation committee, and the head of the Eup/Myeon/Dong (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu71 delivered on December 13, 1983) is not a land excluded from the official land because the court below decided as above and decided that the above portion of the land cannot be deemed a land excluded from the official land. Thus, there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the public land. Thus, the argument pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)