Whether land is exempt from the imposition of land excess profit tax;

In accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the acquisition of land for unavoidable reasons not deemed idle land, etc. and the use of land is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Details of the imposition;

피고가 1991. 11. 5. 원고 소유의 ㅇㅇ ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ의2 대856.6평방미터(이하 이 사건 대지라 한다)가 토지초과이득세법 제8조 제1항 제14호 소정의 나지 에 해당한다 하여 원고에게 1990. 1. 1. 부터 1990. 12. 31. 까지의 예정결정기간분의 토지초과이득세 금 42,194,400원을 부과하는 처분(이하 이 사건 처분이라 한다)을 한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1,2 갑 제6호증, 을 제1호증의 각 기재에 의하여 이를 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

In regard to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful and revoked since the land of this case was designated as an urban design area, but the urban design is not yet finalized, and it is not possible to obtain a building permit until it is finalized, since it is a situation that the urban design is not determined. Thus, it is a situation that the use is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of laws and regulations on the acquisition of land among idle land subject to the land excess profit tax, and thus, it is excluded from

Article 8(1) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act provides that the land owned by an individual, which is subject to the land excess profit tax, is the idle land of the same paragraph 1 through 14 and Article 8(3) of the same Act provides that the land falling under the idle land, etc. due to the provisions of laws and regulations on the acquisition of land, prohibition of use due to the provisions of the laws and regulations on the acquisition of land, loss of a ground building, collapse of a building, and other inevitable reasons as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall not be deemed the idle land for the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1). Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the land is prohibited or restricted from its use due to inevitable reasons not considered the idle land, etc. pursuant to

Therefore, this case's land owned by the plaintiff was owned by the plaintiff, and the fact that the land of this case was located in the plaintiff after the plaintiff acquired it, and the fact that the land of this case was located in the land of this case. According to the fact-finding inquiry report by the party members, even though Kimpo-si was designated as an urban design area, the urban design under Article 8-2 of the Building Act for the area is not confirmed, so it can be acknowledged that the land of this case cannot be permitted to obtain a building permit of this case because the urban design under Article 8-2 of the Building Act for the land of this case is not confirmed. However, according to the evidence No. 6, the acquisition by the plaintiff of this case can be recognized as the fact-finding of 1989, Oct. 14, 1989, after it was designated as an urban design area, and since there is no other counter-proof evidence, the land of

In addition, the plaintiff argues that it is reasonable not to interpret the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as a limited interpretation, not to interpret the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the same Act and Article 23 of the same Act as an exemplary interpretation, and that if only objective reasons exist as in this case, even if it does not fall under the above provision, it is reasonable not to regard it as idle land. Therefore, even if interpreting the above provision as an exemplary interpretation, it is not reasonable to interpret that the above provision

Ultimately, according to the facts found above, the land of this case is clear that it is one of the idle land subject to the land excess profit tax as stipulated in Article 8 (1) 14(a) of the Act, and thus, the disposition of this case against the plaintiff is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the ground of illegality of the disposition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.