A. Whether the registration of factory under the Industrial Placement Act can be deemed to have obtained permission, etc. under Article 78-3 subparagraph 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 414 of May 12, 1984)

(b) Scope of ground fixtures under 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)

A. The permission, etc. of an administrative agency referred to in Article 78-3 subparagraph 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 414, May 12, 1984) refers to the permission, etc. of the administrative agency concerning the specific use of the pertinent land. Thus, the registration of factory under the Industrial Placement Act, which is merely a simple reporting act, cannot be deemed to have

B. According to the provision of Article 142 (1) 1 (f) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984), land area of which does not exceed seven times the area of the ground settlement is excluded from the vacant land. The above ground settlement refers only to the land settlement on the land concerned or the land adjacent thereto.

A. Article 78-3 subparag. 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 414, May 12, 1984); Article 142(1)16 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399, Apr. 6, 1984)

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu387 delivered on April 11, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the defendant.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even if the plaintiff registered the land of this case as factory site, it cannot be deemed that there was the permission or approval of the administrative agency on the land of this case even if it was registered as factory site of this case on the ground that the plaintiff did not have any specific use of land of this case, since the plaintiff did not have any specific use of land of this case, since it did not have any specific use of land of this case as a specific use of the administrative agency's specific use of land of this case, the court below's decision is just and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the permission of the administrative agency and the specific use of land of this case since the land of this case was registered as factory site of this case under the trade name of about 100 meters south from the land of this case.

B. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to Article 142 (1) 1 (g) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984), which was enforced in 1982 and 1983 as the tax payment year of the local tax of this case, the land that does not exceed the basic area of factory sites under Article 6 of the Industrial Placement Act as the land annexed to the building for factory shall be excluded from public land. However, according to the provisions of Article 6 of the Industrial Placement Act, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy determines the basic area of factory sites. According to the provisions of Article 6 of the Industrial Placement Act, the standard factory area ratio is not applied to the factory located in the relocation promotion area. Meanwhile, according to the provisions of Article 2 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement Act, the above land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City is defined as the relocation promotion area, so there is no need to review whether the above land is the land annexed to the building for factory, and there is no violation of law.

C. As to ground of appeal No. 3

According to the provision of Article 142 (1) 6 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, land area does not exceed seven times the area of the land is excluded from the vacant land. The above ground fixtures mean only the land concerned and the ground fixtures on the land adjacent thereto. Thus, although the plaintiff registered the land in this case as a factory site of a wood plant, even if he uses the land in this case as the original purpose storage site of the above factory, the above factory buildings can not be seen as the ground settlement of the land in this case after distance of not less than 100 meters from the above factory and the above factory building cannot be seen as the ground settlement of the land in this case, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

D. As to the fourth ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, although the land of this case was designated as a Class 4 aesthetic district in the residential area, it is not only permissible to construct a second floor or lower house, but also since two years have already passed since the date of the designation of the residential area as of the date of the date of the tax payment of this case, it cannot be viewed that the land of this case constitutes a public land as stipulated in subparagraph 1 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act. Even if only the construction of a second floor or lower house was allowed due to the designation of the land as an aesthetic district, and the warehouse or factory required by the plaintiff was not constructed, it is merely a restriction or a series of measures to construct a building suitable for the designation purpose by designating the land of this case as an aesthetic district, and it cannot be deemed that the land of this case is a land prohibited or restricted for construction and use since two years have passed since it was designated as the scenic district. It is just in the judgment below and there is no

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

According to the provisions of Article 142 (1) 1 (f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Law No. 10663 of December 31, 1981), which was enforced between the year 1979 and the year 1981, the property tax of this case, the land excluding the land falling under the requirements set forth in items (a) through (h) of Article 142 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Law No. 1063 of December 31, 1981), among the land in the area as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, has no land settlement, and is actually not used,

The judgment of the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff used the land of this case as a raw material storage yard which had been continuously stored in the goods manufactured in the above factory, based on the evidences, and judged that the land of this case does not constitute a fair land as the land actually used by the plaintiff. In light of the records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)