Park Jin-Jon (Attorney Park Dong-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Gangnam-gu

December 9, 1981

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition of imposition of property tax on land in 1980 against the plaintiff on September 16, 1980, of 6,439,50 won (ex officio correction of 6,294,834 won October 31, 1980), urban planning tax amounting to 257,580 won (ex officio correction of 251,424 won), defense tax amounting to 1,287,90 won (ex officio correction of 1,258,967 won), and the disposition of imposition of urban planning tax in excess of 386,370 won, defense tax amounting to 7,274 won, and urban planning tax amounting to 1,274 won, and the lawsuit cost shall be revoked.

(1) First, we examine the claim of this case concerning the disposition of property tax and its defense tax imposition.

The defendant, as a result of the land readjustment project implemented as of September 16, 1980 and implemented as of November 18, 1968, No. 83, 452, 3, 746, 84, 452, 73, 73, 748, 746, 198, 73, 83, 846, 79, 196, 196, 36, 196, 196, 9, 196, 196, 36, 196, 19, 196, 14, 196, 19, 196, 36, 19, 196, 14, 196, 19, 20, 196, 36, 196, 19, 36, 196, 196, 36, 18, 4, 196, 1, 36, 1,

According to Article 142 (1) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the plaintiff's land substituted by a land readjustment project under the Land Readjustment Project Act and for which five years have not passed from the date of construction is excluded from the public land. This case's land is not less than five years from the date of construction since the land substitution is designated by the implementation of the land readjustment project under the Land Readjustment Project Act, but the date of construction itself has not yet arrived. Thus, this case's taxation, which is heavy taxation, is unlawful since the land is regarded as public land and it cannot be seen as public land, although the previous land was designated after the execution of the land readjustment project under the Land Readjustment Project Act and no later public land substitution disposition has been made after the execution of the land rearrangement project, it is possible to construct the previous land after the completion of the land rearrangement project, and even if the land rearrangement project is completed in fact by the plaintiff, it is obvious that the above land can be completed by the construction period of 17 years from the date of completion of the construction period of the above land in the above area including the above construction period of 97 years.

According to the Building Bylaws of the apartment district in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the land of this case is limited to not less than 3,00 square meters (90 square meters) of the site for the construction of apartment buildings within the apartment district. Since the land area is merely 715 square meters (land substitution area), it is impossible to construct apartment houses in conformity with the above standard on the above land, even if it is intended to purchase neighboring land or to construct apartment houses in consultation with neighboring land owners, it is impossible to purchase apartment buildings at a reasonable price even if it is not possible to construct apartment buildings in conformity with the above standard, and it is difficult to construct apartment buildings in compliance with the above standard. According to the Building Bylaws of the apartment district in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the land of this case is limited to 1,00 square meters (3,00 square meters) and it is inevitable to construct or use apartment buildings within 1,000 square meters (2,000 square meters) as well as 1,0000 square meters (2,000 square meters) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act.

However, according to the provisions of Article 188 (1) and (3) of the Local Tax Act, the classification and limit of property subject to taxation such as vacant land shall be determined by the Presidential Decree, and Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "land which is public within the area determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, with the exception of the above land (6) Item (a) or (h) of the same Article among the land which is not actually used and without its settlement, the land shall be excluded from the prescribed land of Article 78-3 (1) Item 1 (h) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act and Article 78-3 (1) (1) of the same Act provides that "any land, the use of which is prohibited by the construction and its use of which is prohibited by the provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, and it shall be excluded from the prescribed land of Article 142 (1) 1 (f) of the same Act because it is not appropriate for the plaintiff to be designated from the prescribed land of Article 78 (2).

As seen above, even if the land was designated as an apartment zone on August 21, 1976 and became the land stipulated in subparagraph 1 (ii) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, the Mayor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City designated the apartment project implementer for part of the land including the land in this case as the apartment project implementer on August 4, 1978. Accordingly, the above land became the land for which legal construction is prohibited in the above Item (1) in the plaintiff, and even if the above land was partially changed on February 14, 1979, and was excluded from the above area, it constitutes "the prohibition is revoked" under the latter part of Item (1) of the above Article 78-3 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the above part of the apartment project was unlawful in the previous part of Article 18 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (the above part of the apartment project for the purpose of taxation within the previous 15th day after February 15, 1980).

Therefore, as seen above, the land in this case falls under the land stipulated in Item 1 (ii) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and if three years have passed from the date it was designated as an apartment zone, it can be imposed heavyly from that time, and it is apparent that three years have passed from the date the payment period of the property tax in this case was designated as an apartment zone ( September 16, 1980). Thus, the land in this case is a public land because it is apparent that three years have passed from the date the payment period of the property tax in this case was designated as an apartment zone ( August 21, 1976). Thus, even after the three-year grace period of the above three-year grace period of the plaintiff in this case, there is no other assertion that there is any other justifiable reason for not using the land in this case (the various grounds of the plaintiff's main office in this case cannot be seen as a justifiable reason in this case). The plaintiff's assertion is justified and all of the plaintiff'

(2) Next, we examine the part concerning the claim for imposition of urban planning tax among the claims for this case.

In accordance with the provisions of Articles 235 through 237 of the Local Tax Act, the Defendant imposed an urban planning tax of 257,580 won on the Plaintiff on September 16, 1980 on the land of this case, but on October 31 of the same year, it should be excluded from the above taxation object as it goes against the urban planning line, and accordingly, the above urban planning tax should be determined ex officio as 251,424 won among the above land of 17.31 of the same year. The Plaintiff asserted that the above land of this case was unlawful since there was no dispute between the parties, and there was no dispute between the parties, and that the land of this case was determined as 2,30 won and 2, No. 2-2, No. 3, and No. 5 of the above land of this case, which was publicly notified under the provisions of the Urban Planning Act, and that the urban planning tax was commenced on the land of this case, and that only the land of this case was designated as a land subject to replotting under the Urban Planning Act.

Article 235 (1) of the Local Tax Act provides that the urban planning tax shall be a taxable object of the land prescribed by the Presidential Decree located within the whole or part of the urban planning zone publicly notified under the Urban Planning Act in order to cover the expenses for the urban planning project. Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the land subject to the urban planning tax among the land subject to the property tax under the same Act is all the land located within the land subject to the land subject to the land subject to the urban planning tax, excluding the electricity, paddy field, orchard, orchard, pasture, pasture, pasture, and woodland, and in which a replotting disposition is publicly announced under the Urban Section 1 of Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The land excluded from the land subject to the urban planning tax under the Urban Planning Tax Act is not determined by the land category on the public register, but the latter part of the same paragraph shall be deemed to be the land subject to the imposition of the land without any dispute as to whether there is a land subject to the imposition of the urban planning tax on the land.

(3) Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the taxation disposition in this case is unlawful is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

December 23, 1981

Judges Yellowdon (Presiding Judge) and Lee Jae-chul