Whether land for which one year and six months have not elapsed from the date of cancellation of the designation of the first-class aesthetic district and the restriction on construction under Article 285 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice, etc. falls under whether the land is subject to taxation among property tax (negative)

If the land of this case was designated as a Class 1 aesthetic district under the Urban Planning Act of December 31, 1973, and construction control was conducted pursuant to Article 88 of the Public Notice of Seoul Metropolitan Government in the last half of May 22, 1978, and new extension of a building was restricted again until July 31, 1979 pursuant to Article 215 of the Public Notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City of May 22, 1978 and Article 285 of the same Public Notice of June 30 of the same year, the above restriction is not based on the law itself, but by the administrative measure, the laws and regulations of subparagraph 1 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act include the same administrative measure, and even if the contents of the restriction are temporary and partial restriction, it is clearly limited within the business district and Class 1 aesthetic district, so the land for which the same measure was taken is excluded from the property tax of this case for the purpose of construction of this case from 196 days to 197 days.

Subparagraph 1 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu89 delivered on December 2, 1981, 81Nu64 delivered on December 22, 1981, 81, 81Nu64 delivered on January 26, 1981, 81Nu55 delivered on May 11, 1982, 81Nu407 delivered on May 11, 1982, 81Nu71 delivered on May 11, 1982, 81Nu20 delivered on September 14, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu263 delivered on January 13, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the above 360 square meters is the land owned by the plaintiff without any ground settlement on March 23, 1970. Since the land of this case is located as Class 1 aesthetic district under the Urban Planning Act (No. 519 of December 31, 1973), the size of the building on the land is 18, 9, and 5,000 square meters in length, and the height is 88,000 square meters or more, and the building site area of this case was designated as the business district under Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (No. 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act) and its total area was 19,00 square meters or more, and the building site area of this case was 50 square meters or more under Article 170 of the Enforcement Rule of the Building Act (No. 97 of April 22, 1976). It seems that there was no error in the law of the court below's determination that the building area was 170.

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)