[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

Head of Busan Special Metropolitan City, Dong-gu (Attorney Han Han-dae, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

October 12, 1982

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The part exceeding KRW 944,460 among the tax dispositions in KRW 15,740,509, which was imposed by the Defendant on September 17, 1981 by the Plaintiff, and the part exceeding KRW 188,892 among the tax dispositions in KRW 3,148,100, which was imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff in 1981, shall be revoked, respectively. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Details of taxation; and

In full view of the purport of the pleading in each statement of evidence Nos. 1-3 and 2-3 of the above evidence Nos. 1-2 and 142 (1) 1-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the defendant, who is the plaintiff's owner, recognizes that the sum of the standard market value of KRW 314,810,187 as tax base amount and applied the tax rate of KRW 15,700 to the claim for the property tax, KRW 10,410,187 to the amount of tax base and three lots adjoining the plaintiff's land No. 89-9-10, 89-11, 89-12, 89-10, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 140, 201.

2. Assertion and determination

(1) The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2 were not allowed to use the above land for the purpose of lease. The plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the above land for the purpose of lease. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the above land for the first time after the 7th anniversary of the above construction site. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the above land for the first time. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the land for the first time after the 7th anniversary of the construction site. The non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the land for the first time after the 7th anniversary of the construction site. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use the land for the first time after the 7th anniversary of the construction site. The plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 were not allowed to use.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition imposing the property tax and the defense tax is without merit, and it is dismissed, 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.

November 2, 1982

Judge Lee Dong-soo (Presiding Judge)