Whether the use of land is prohibited or restricted if it is not possible to obtain a comprehensive building permit.

In a case where a building permit is rejected en bloc, it shall be viewed as land prohibited because the landowner has objective reasons for not being able to use the land even if he wishes to use the land.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing the land excess profit tax on each of the plaintiffs on the date specified in the attached Table 2 List (1) shall be revoked, respectively. 2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Details of the taxation disposition in the instant case;

The defendant shall regard the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") owned by the plaintiffs as the idle land as stipulated in the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as of December 31, 1990 at the end of the scheduled decision period (from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 190) and the fact that the defendant imposed the land excess profit tax as stated in the separate sheet No. 2 (1) of the same Table to each plaintiffs on the date listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the same Table is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The legality of taxation disposition

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant's taxation of this case is unlawful on the following grounds.

First, the plaintiffs can not obtain a building permit until the designation of urban planning facilities was publicly announced on March 20, 1978 and the designation of urban planning facilities was revoked on February 4, 1987 and the alteration was formulated on June 29, 198 after the designation of urban planning facilities was revoked on February 4, 198, and the urban design was determined and publicly announced on August 30, 1991. Thus, at the end of the scheduled period of determination, the land should be deemed land the use of which was prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the statutes.

Second, the land excess profit tax is levied on unrealized processed capital gains, and even if there is no economic surplus even if the taxpayer has an intention to actively respond to it, the tax imposed is forced to collect, thereby infringing on the taxpayer's property rights, which is contrary to the substance over form principle and the principle of good faith under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Third, even if the land of this case falls under idle land, it is wrong to calculate the tax amount on the basis of the standard market price in 1991 when imposing the land excess profit tax in 190.

B. First of all, Article 3(1) of the Act provides that the land excess profit tax shall be imposed on the land generated from such idle land, etc., and Article 8(1)14 (a) of the Act and Article 21(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the land shall be owned by an individual and corresponding to the idle land, and Article 8(3) of the Act provides that the land shall not be deemed to be idle land for the purpose of the Act and its subordinate statutes for the first time after its acquisition, or for the first time after its acquisition. Since the provision of Article 8(1)3 of the Act and subordinate statutes provides that the land exceeding 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act shall not be deemed to be idle land for the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and that the use of the land shall not be deemed to be more than 9 of the Act and subordinate statutes for the purpose of the Act and subordinate statutes for the first time after its acquisition. This provision provides that the land exceeding 9 of the Act and subordinate statutes shall not be deemed to be idle land for three years after its acquisition or cancellation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the taxation of this case where the defendant regarded the land of this case as idle land under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act is unfair, so the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.