Whether the land which can be constructed or used can be excluded from the vacant land which is subject to taxation of property tax if it is used solely with the neighboring land owned by the same person (negative)

Whether it is inappropriate to construct or use a parcel of land excluded from the public land subject to taxation of property tax is not necessarily required to be determined by parcel, but if the land without fixtures on the ground is owned by the same person even if it is inappropriate to construct or use the land alone, it is possible for the owner to use it together in accordance with the awareness of the owner because another parcel of land attached to the land is owned by the same person, and if it is suitable to construct or use it together, it cannot be deemed inappropriate to construct or use it.

Article 78-3 subparagraph 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of December 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1201 Delivered on April 12, 1988

E. Materna

The head of Incheon Metropolitan City Southern-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu3672 delivered on July 20, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Article 78-3 subparag. 10 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986) provides that if it is deemed inappropriate to construct or use a parcel of land in technology or economy because it is its location or form, it shall be excluded from the public land subject to heavy property tax even if there is no fixtures on the land. In light of the fact that the purpose of legislation of the first public land is to impose property tax on the land at a higher rate than other property, it indirectly forces the land owner's land use by imposing property tax on the land in the first public land, thereby contributing to the national economic development, and to indirectly restrain the land owner's ownership of excessive land not to use at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1201, Apr. 12, 198). It is not necessarily necessary to determine whether a parcel of land is inappropriate to construct or use the land, as in this case, if it is impossible to construct or use the land alone with the land.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no violation of law such as theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)