Article 142 (1) 1 and 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984) and Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986)

The purpose of Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 (h) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984) and Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986) is to stipulate that all the land prohibited from being used by the court shall not be excluded from the public place where the lawsuit on ownership is pending or where one year and six months have not passed since the final judgment was made, and that only the land prohibited from use by the court is excluded from the public place during the lawsuit proceedings on ownership and until one year and six months have passed since the final judgment was made. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the land, the disposal prohibition of which only prohibits an act of disposal, is prohibited from being used by the court.

Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984), Article 78-3 Item 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 76Nu149 delivered on October 12, 1976, 82Nu32 delivered on April 27, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu190 Delivered on April 12, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Mapo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu605 delivered on December 18, 1984

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 (h) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984), the term "other land prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs", which was in force on the date of the payment of the property tax, shall be excluded from the public land as provided by Article 188 (1) 1 Item 3 of the Local Tax Act. According to Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, the term "land under dispute" includes "land under dispute" which is to be excluded from the above public land and for which one year and 6 months have not passed from the date of the final judgment on ownership, and the purport of this provision is that all the land should not be excluded from the public land for which 18 years and 6 months have not passed from the date of the final judgment on ownership or all the land for which 2 years and 16 months have not passed from the date of the final judgment on ownership.

However, the lower court determined that the instant land constituted land excluded from the public land pursuant to the above Act and revoked the Defendant’s property tax imposition disposition against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant land owned by the Plaintiff was in transit, and that there was a disposition prohibiting the disposal of the said shares. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public land under the Local Tax Act. It is reasonable to view that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the public land under the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)