The commencement date of a land readjustment project prescribed in the proviso of Article 142 (1) 1 and 6 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

It is reasonable to interpret that the starting date of the land zone rearrangement project under the proviso of Article 142 (1) 1-6 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is the authorization date for the implementation of the same zone rearrangement project, and it cannot be interpreted as the authorization date

Article 188 of the Local Tax Act, Article 142 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Articles 32 and 39 of the Land Readjustment Project Act

Plaintiff

Head of Busan City/Do

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On September 27, 1975, the Defendant imposed property tax of KRW 526,350 on the Plaintiff on Sep. 27, 1975, 350, 350, 350, 350, 1975.

A judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant is sought.

The plaintiff's acquisition date of the above real estate is May 8, 1967, and the plaintiff's acquisition of the above land was made on September 1, 1975 and after the second period of the property tax payment period of the second period of the property tax payment of the above land after the commencement date of the above business, the plaintiff acquired the above land from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on June 30, 1967 and approved a disposition of replotting. The plaintiff's acquisition date of the above real estate is about May 8, 1967. In imposing the property tax on the above land, the plaintiff's acquisition of the above land was made on January 9, 1967, the date of the execution of the land readjustment project, which was 1975, the second period of the property tax payment period of the above land after the commencement date of the business, and after the lapse of 2 years from June 30, 1973, it was not subject to a dispute between the parties to the pertinent tax rate of 25 years or 3 years.5 years.6

On January 9, 1967, the date of authorization for the execution of a land readjustment project, the plaintiff obtained authorization from the Minister of Construction and Transportation for the execution of the land readjustment project, and the date of the commencement of the project is December 1, 1972. Therefore, the land in this case should be excluded from the public land because five years have not elapsed since the date of completion of the project as the land acquired before the commencement of the project was acquired before the commencement of the land before the commencement of the project, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant found the date of commencement of the project to be wrong on January 9, 1967, which is the date of authorization for the execution of a land readjustment project and imposed tax on the land acquired after the commencement of the project was illegal. Thus, according to Article 32 of the Land Readjustment Project Act, if the local government intends to commence the land readjustment project, it shall be subject to authorization from the date of announcement of authorization for the execution of the land rearrangement project to the date of public announcement of the land substitution plan, so it is reasonable for the plaintiff to interpret the land in this case after the completion of the project.

Therefore, on the premise that the above taxation disposition is illegal, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is dismissed without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)