Land of less than 300 square meters and vacant land located in a Do in which construction on a site of less than 500 square meters is restricted;

In order to prevent a balance between the construction restriction measures of Seoul Special Metropolitan City which limit the minimum size of building site at 500 square meters and the supply and demand of materials due to an urgent increase in construction activities, land of less than 300 square meters in the city owned by the plaintiffs which was not constructed according to the measures prohibiting the construction and extension of public buildings and private buildings in all areas of Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be determined whether the construction falls under the category of subparagraph 1 (2) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, as long as the latter measures are removed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, as long as the electronic measures remain as they are, it is clear that the restriction on the minimum size of building site was impossible due to the restriction on construction of Seoul Special Metropolitan City until the restriction on construction of the minimum size of the building site is mitigated to 200 square meters.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu213 delivered on April 4, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

The court below established the 1st class aesthetic district which limit the minimum size of the building site to 200 square meters by December 31, 1973 as the first class aesthetic district which limit the size of the building site by the announcement No. 519 of the Construction 31, Dec. 31, 1973. The court below established the 88th of Apr. 22, 1976 Seoul Special Metropolitan City's improvement plan and announced the 300 square meters or more of the 1975th of May 3, 197. The above improvement plan was revised to limit the minimum size of the building site to 300 square meters or more, 1,000 square meters or more of the minimum size of the building site, 200 square meters or more of the 197th of September 4, 1978. The court below did not change the construction site size to the minimum size of the building site to 500 square meters or more, and did not permit construction more than 200 square meters or more than the 197th of the above construction site size.

According to the facts of the above decision of the court below, even if construction restriction measures in the whole area of Seoul Special Metropolitan City were removed by the Minister of Construction and Transportation as of August 1, 1979 for the prevention of imbalance in supply and demand of materials, it is clear that the construction restriction measures of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, which limit the minimum size of building site to the area of no less than 500 square meters, continue to exist without removal. Accordingly, each land owned by the plaintiffs below 300 square meters, owned by the plaintiffs, was land, the construction of which is prohibited by the construction restriction measures in the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, by the minimum size of building site in the area of no more than 200 square meters

Therefore, it is reasonable for the court below to consider that the above period has not elapsed as of September 16, 1979, counting the period of one year and six months as stipulated in Article 142 (1) 1 (f) (h) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 (1) (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act after the restriction on construction of the above loan was mitigated, and there is no argument that the above period should be calculated from the date of cancellation of the restriction on construction for discharged public service of the Minister of Construction and Transportation.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to Article 142 (1) 1 (h) of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that land excluded from public land shall be land (1) and for which one year and six months have not passed from the date on which the prohibition is cancelled, and for which construction is permitted only to the land meeting the purpose of designating the area and district under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, or within the area or district where the construction is allowed, and for which two years have not passed from the date of such designation, except the area where the construction of housing on the second or upper floor is allowed.

In light of the fact that the owner of land who leaves the land for which the object of heavy property tax is available is indirectly compelling the use of the land, the above item (1) is intended to be dismissed in the event that the use of the land is prohibited by the construction and use of the land pursuant to the law, and to be vacant from the time when 1 year and 6 months have elapsed as a preparatory period for the commencement of use, and the above item (2) is restricted in the case where the construction is in conformity with the purpose of the designation of the area, district, etc. under the law, the above item (1) is intended to be used as a preparatory period for the construction after the designation of the land.

According to the facts of the decision of the court below, each of the lands of this case owned by the plaintiffs is less than 300 square meters, and it is apparent that construction on each of the lands of this case has become impossible to replace construction on each of the lands until the minimum size limit of building site area is 200 square meters or more. Thus, whether each of the lands of this case falls under the category of land in accordance with subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and it shall not be determined by subparagraph 2 of the same Article.

The above theory of the original adjudication is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the nature of the guidelines for the maintenance plan or the legal principles of the relevant laws, such as the theory of the lawsuit.

3. 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 Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)