(a) Whether the land designated as an apartment district falls under the land excluded from the vacant land provided for in subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;

(b) Where the implementer of an apartment district development project has been designated for the land designated as an apartment district, whether it falls under the land to be excluded from the vacant land referred to in subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;

A. In order to construct a building in compliance with the purpose of the designation of an apartment zone, regulations such as relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are established in order to ensure that the land designated as an apartment zone is constructed, and the administrative agency has received a reply from the administrative agency that other buildings cannot be constructed. However, such reason alone does not immediately constitute the land, the use of which is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 78-3 subparag. 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act.

B. Where an apartment zone development project operator under Article 21(2) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act has been designated after the designation of an apartment zone with respect to a certain land, the right to implement the apartment zone development project, which is guaranteed to landowners, is entirely excluded due to such overlapped measures as above, and a landowner is no longer able to use the land in the apartment zone, and it is clear that the use of the land directly and indirectly results in the result of the prohibition or restriction of the use of the land, and at the same time, the land is designated as the operator of the apartment zone development project, and the use of the land is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes stipulated in subparagraph 1(1) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Article 18(2) of the Urban Planning Act, Article 16 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Urban Planning Act, Article 33 of the Building Act, Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Articles 20, 21, 21(2), and 31 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, Article 188(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 142(1)1 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu664 delivered on May 24, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) 452 square meters and ( Address 2 omitted) 746 square meters and 348 square meters, which were the land of this case, were designated as a planned land substitution area by a land readjustment project implemented from January 18, 1968, and the plaintiff owned it without the above ground fixtures, the court below held that the neighboring land where the land of this case is located was designated as an apartment zone pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Urban Planning Act of August 21, 1976 and Article 23 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 20 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the head of Si/Gun shall establish a basic plan for the development of apartment lots within one year if the designation of the apartment zone is announced, and that the construction of apartment lots should not be approved by the Minister of Construction and Transportation within 100 square meters and 155-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and it can be recognized that the above apartment lots were not used within 170 square meters of the above building site.

However, the neighboring land, including the land in this case, was designated as the land in the apartment zone, and the provisions such as related Acts and subordinate statutes such as the time of the original adjudication are provided in order to construct buildings that meet the purpose of the designation with respect to the land designated as the apartment zone, and further, the plaintiff has received a reply from the defendant, etc. to the effect that other buildings that are not apartment buildings can not be constructed on several occasions, such as the approval of the original judgment, even if the plaintiff received a reply from the defendant, etc., the land in this case does not immediately constitute the land, the use of which is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 78-3

However, according to the records, the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on August 4, 1978, designated apartment zone development project under Article 21 (2) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, was designated as the project implementer of the above apartment zone on the ground that there is no application for project implementation approval within the prescribed period from the land owner such as the plaintiff, etc. who is the primary project implementer of the development project of the apartment zone including this case. The non-party company designated the non-party third party housing company as the project implementer of the above apartment zone on the ground that the land is excluded from the project execution area due to the change of the project execution area after the commencement of the project. Therefore, if the non-party company designated the apartment zone development project implementer of the apartment zone under Article 21 (2) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act after the designation of the apartment zone, the right to implement the development project of the apartment zone which is guaranteed to the land owner is entirely excluded from the execution right due to the above overlapping measures, and the use of the land is prohibited by the enforcement regulations of the Local Tax Act, and it is clear that the operator is prohibited from using the land under Article 218 (31).

The Court Decision 82Nu83 decided March 13, 1984 and 82Nu83 decided to abolish it.

On the other hand, since the land in this case was excluded from the above project execution area and the designation of the developer of the apartment district development project was cancelled, it was obvious from February 14, 1979, which was the starting date of the property tax payment period of this case, and the land in this case was no longer than 1 year and 6 months, and therefore, it is deemed that the land in this case is no longer public land as of the starting date of the property tax payment period, and the defendant's taxation disposition of this case is unlawful. Thus, in the process of determining whether the land in this case is to be excluded from public land, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as seen above, but the above error of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment that allowed the plaintiff to report the land to be excluded from public land as stipulated in Article 78-3 (1) 1 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and it is therefore not justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)