Standards that are excluded from the housing site subject to the imposition of excess ownership charges pursuant to Article 20 (1) 1 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites.

In full view of the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 19, Articles 20 (1) 1, 16 (1) 1, and 11 (1) 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and Article 18 (1) 1, (2) 1, and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in cases where an entrepreneur who constructs a house and disposes of or leases it to another person, acquires a housing site in excess of the upper limit of the ownership of each household for the purpose concerned, the owner of the housing site shall dispose of it within three years from the date of the acquisition of the housing site with the permission, and if the housing site is acquired without the permission, within three years from the date of the legal fiction of acquisition under Article 53 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, it shall be excluded from the housing site subject to excess ownership, which is the purport that the housing site subject to the imposition of charges for each household exceeding the upper limit of the household ownership, and whether the housing site is excluded from the charge shall not be determined by the competent head of Si/Gun within the competent Si.

Subparagraph 1 of Article 19, Article 20(1)1, Article 16(1)1, and Article 11(1)2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 18(1)1, and Article 18(4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 18(2)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13882, May 10, 1993)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu1475 delivered on June 15, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers.

On the first ground for appeal

In full view of the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 19, Article 20 (1) 1, Article 16 (1) 1, Article 16 (1) 2, and Article 11 (1) 1, Article 11 (2) 1, and Article 11 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites / In cases where a business operator who constructs a house and disposes of or leases it to another person, acquires a housing site in excess of the upper limit of the household for the purpose concerned, the owner of the housing site shall dispose of it within three years from the date of acquisition of the housing site, and if the housing site is acquired without the permission, it shall be disposed of within three years from the date of acquisition, and if the housing site is acquired without the permission, it shall be excluded from the housing site subject to excess ownership charges for each household in excess of the upper limit of a separate house. Whether the housing site subject to imposition is excluded from the charge shall be determined within the period of disposal by the competent head of Si/Gun, as alleged in the opinion.

Therefore, in accordance with the relevant laws and the facts of recognition, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's disposition of imposing excessive ownership charges on the housing site of this case is unlawful since the plaintiff is exempted from the imposition of excessive ownership charges on the housing site of this case, since the plaintiff is a business operator who constructs the housing site of this case and disposes of or leases it to another person, and then constructs multi-household houses on the ground of this purpose and sells them in lots on August 9, 191 after acquiring the housing site of this case. When the defendant imposes the disposition of this case on the land of this case, 3 years have not passed since the acquisition date of this case ( May 18, 190) and Article 16 (1) 1 of the Act and Article 18 (2) 1 of the Decree of the Decree were not imposed on the housing site of this case. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

On the second ground for appeal

As the Plaintiff removed the existing house above the instant housing site on June 16, 1990 and newly built multi-households on August 8, 1991, it is justifiable to apply the imposition rate of 6/100 to the housing site during the said construction period pursuant to Article 24 of the Act. However, this is without merit, on the premise that the said housing site is subject to excess ownership charges.

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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)