(a) Whether Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1986) and Article 78-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act violate the parent law (negative);

B. Whether the phrase “the date of acquisition” under Article 142(1)1(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be deemed as the enforcement date of the amended Act in the case of land corresponding to the public land due to the amendment of the Act (negative)

C. Whether a small-scale project “C” under Article 142(1)1(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act can be determined as “it is possible to construct a building on the ground that construction of a building on the neighboring land in the same division is completed, solely on the sole basis of the fact that a building was constructed on the land in the land within the land readjustment project zone (negative)

A. Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 31, Dec. 31, 1986) sets forth the scope of official approval pursuant to delegation of Article 188 of the same Act. However, it is evident that Article 78-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, stipulates only the total method of the land to which the application area and the official regulations are excluded, shall be delegated to the Minister of Home Affairs. Thus, the above Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule shall not be deemed to be in accordance with delegation of the upper law, which violates the purpose or goes beyond

B. Article 142 (1) 1 (6) Item (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act stipulating that no land for which one and half years have not passed since the date of acquisition shall be regarded as a public notice, "the date of acquisition" as "the date of acquisition of the land actually acquired", and if the land was not a public notice for the previous time due to the amendment of the Act, there is no ground to regard it as the enforcement date of the amended Act.

C. Even if the construction of a building is not practically impossible due to the completion of the suspension of land, if there is no cross-section drainage facility which can connect sewerage or other drainage facilities, the construction of the building cannot be legally enforced. Thus, “the date on which the construction of the building is possible after the completion of a sectional unit” as stipulated in Article 142 subparag. 1(6) Item 1(c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act refers to the time when the inter-section drainage facility has been completed in addition to the completion of the rearrangement work and road facilities. The construction of the period before the completion of the inter-section drainage facility cannot be readily concluded solely on the basis of the fact that the construction was completed.

Article 188 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1986); Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 78-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act; Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Nu519 delivered on February 8, 1985 (Gong1985,439). Supreme Court Decision 82Nu58 delivered on July 27, 1982 (Gong1982,83) 85Nu203 delivered on July 9, 1985 (Gong1985,1137)

Note-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

The head of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu278 delivered on June 14, 1988

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 188 (1) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1986, Dec. 31, 1986; hereinafter the same shall apply) which provides for the property tax rate shall apply differentiatedly to the tax rate by dividing the land subject to taxation into several lots, such as residential land and vacant land. Article 188 (3) of the same Act provides that "the classification and limit of property subject to taxation under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree." Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is the Presidential Decree, provides that the public land shall be determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs as site within the area determined by Ordinance of the Ministry as of the Ministry of Home Affairs as of the starting date of payment of the property tax, and it shall not be deemed that the following land is a public land: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the land owned by the same person, which is more than 662 meters in total according to the method prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and Home Affairs, and the Enforcement Decree shall not apply any of the above public land.

The original adjudication to the same effect is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the provisions of Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution, which provide for the principle of no taxation without law, or by misunderstanding the legal principles on the relationship with the law and the delegation order. There

2. On the second ground for appeal:

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that land for which one year and six months have not passed from the date of its acquisition shall not be deemed public land. Here, the date of its acquisition shall be deemed as the date of its actual acquisition (see Supreme Court Decision 84Nu519, Feb. 8, 1985). If the land is not public land before, and if it falls under public land due to the amendment of the Act and subordinate statutes, there is no basis to regard it as the enforcement date of the amended Act and subordinate statutes.

On the date of acquisition, the decisions pointing out this theory on the enforcement date of the amended Act and subordinate statutes are different from this case, and it is not appropriate to this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the standard of tax law interpretation under Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation, and the legal principles of related Acts and subordinate statutes.

3. As to the third ground for appeal:

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "the date on which a building can be constructed after its construction is completed in a divided unit of business" refers to a case where construction of a building is not legally enforced, since there is no intermodal distribution system that can connect sewerage or other drainage facilities, even if construction is not practically impossible due to the completion of the suspension of the relevant land. Thus, construction of a building can not be legally enforced, in addition to the completion of construction of the relevant land and road facilities, it is a case of this party member who regards it as the time of completion of intermodal distribution facilities (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu58 delivered on July 27, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu203 delivered on July 9, 198

Therefore, from among the land of this case, it is reasonable that the court below recognized that all of the road facilities and connecting drainage facilities have been completed until the end of 1980 and it is possible to construct the road, and it is reasonable that the court below violated the rules of evidence in the process of evidence preparation. Thus, there is no violation of the rules of evidence against this part.

Next, when considering the land of this case among the land of this case, it is possible to construct the land of this case and the land of this 716-2 of the same 716-9 site owned by the plaintiff Twit-dong 715-9 and the land of this case owned by the plaintiff Twit-dong 716-2, among the land of this case, the court below recognized that the land of this case was finally constructed by the defendant from the neighboring land owner after December 10, 1973, and the land of this case belongs to the 185-1, and the 5th construction was started on March 30, 1971 and completed July 10 in the same year, and the road packing work was completed on December 10, 1980, and it did not recognize that the land of this case was finally constructed by the defendant, and rejected the land of this case as the evidence of this case No. 12, No. 1313 (No. 15) and the evidence of this case No. 1375 (No. 98).

In light of the evidence cited in the above facts, subparagraph 1-2 and subparagraph 3 of the above provision can only be seen as having been aware of the fact that a replotting disposition became final and conclusive, and subparagraph 2 of the above provision can only be seen as having been constructed on the above land by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council (197 August 2, 200) and evidence Nos. 6-10 and 10 of the above provision stated that the above provision had been constructed on the 7th anniversary of the above provision of 7th anniversary of the construction completion of the above provision, it cannot be seen as having a direct relationship with the construction completion of the above provision on the 9th anniversary of the construction of the above provision on the 19th anniversary of the construction of the above provision on the 19th anniversary of the construction of the above provision on the 1-6th anniversary of the construction of the above provision on the 1-6th anniversary of the construction of the above provision on the 1-6th anniversary of the construction of the above provision on the 1-6th new provision on the land.

Therefore, the court below's finding that the cross-line distribution facilities around the above land have been completed at least before 1980 by the above macroscopic evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to comply with the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

However, according to the facts of the decision of the court below, each of the above land owned by the plaintiffs and the above land located in the new districts owned by the plaintiffs is classified as a 662m2 square meters for each of the above land owned by the plaintiffs according to Article 142 (1) 1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 78-2 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, since the combined area of the land located in each of the above wooden districts owned by the plaintiffs exceeds 662m2 for each of the above land owned by the plaintiffs, and if the land located in each of the above wooden districts owned by the plaintiffs is not a vacant land, there is room for not to fall under each of the above land located in each of the above new districts, so the judgment of the court below cannot be exempted from the whole reversal,

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won