In a case where a hot spring development plan has been designated as a hot spring district but the hot spring development plan has not been established, whether it constitutes a case where the use is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of statutes after acquiring the land as stipulated in Article 23 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Land Excess Profit Tax

In full view of the relevant provisions regarding the designation of a hot spring district and a hot spring development plan, a hot spring district is designated for the promotion of public utilization of hot spring and the improvement of hot spring utilization facilities and environment, and it is not limited to the remaining activities except acts related to hot spring development even before a hot spring development plan was formulated after it was designated as a hot spring district. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the designation of a hot spring district was prohibited or restricted by statutes after the acquisition of land as prescribed by the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (repealed by Act No. 5586, Dec. 28, 1998) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 15972, Dec. 31, 1998).

Articles 8(3) and 9(6) of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (repealed by Act No. 5586, Dec. 28, 1998); Article 23 subparag. 1 and 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (repealed by Presidential Decree No. 15972, Dec. 31, 1998); Article 3 and Article 7 of the Hot Spring Act

Domins Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Racing Head of the Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu9301 delivered on May 22, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

After finding facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, in full view of the relevant provisions regarding the designation of a hot spring district and a hot spring development plan, a hot spring district is designated for the promotion of public use of hot spring and the improvement of hot spring utilization facilities and environment, and its activities, other than acts related to the development of hot spring, are not restricted even before the hot spring development plan was established after it was designated as a hot spring district, and that the designation of a hot spring district in each of the instant lands cannot be deemed as a case where the use of a hot spring district was prohibited or restricted by the statutes after the acquisition of land under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, and that the change of the urban planning district was made on July 9, 192, 196. The lower court rejected the lower court’s detailed determination that the change of the urban planning district was made within 97 days prior to the expiration of the urban planning district, and that the change of the urban planning district cannot be deemed to constitute a ground for restricting the use of each of the instant land.

In light of the above, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, misapprehension of legal principles, and violation of the precedents as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)