Whether a site entered in the public register, which actually has carried on agricultural crops, falls under the extent of Presidential Emergency Decree No. 3 and Article 16 (1) 1 (c)

Site entered in the public register, which had been actually cultivated crops before January 14, 1974, for the stabilization of people's lives, was promulgated and enforced by the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 3 for the stabilization of people's lives, shall not fall under the vacant land referred to in Article 16 (1) 1 (c) above emergency measures.

Article 3 of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 3, Article 16 of the Presidential Emergency Decree, Article 4 of the Regulations on the Exclusion of Land for Non-business Purposes of Corporations (Ordinance of the Ministry of National Affairs No. 142)

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu152 delivered on August 23, 1977

Plaintiff 1 and two others

The head of Busan Dong-si

1. The defendant dated October 1, 1974 to the plaintiffs

(a)the portion exceeding KRW 127,312 of the property tax for the second period portion of 1974 imposed on the land entered in the list of Schedule 1, 2, and 3 annexed hereto, whichever exceeds KRW 2,431,12;

(b) The portion exceeding KRW 74,305 of the property tax for the second period portion of KRW 1,857,625 of the property tax for the same year imposed on the land listed in [Attachment 4,5] and KRW 62,745 of the urban planning tax for the same year, and the portion exceeding KRW 74,305 of the urban planning tax for the same year, shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The portion exceeding KRW 127,312 of the property tax for the second term portion of KRW 2,431,120 of the property tax for the second term portion of KRW 2,431,120 of the property tax for the year 1974 imposed by the defendant on the plaintiffs as of October 1, 1974, and the portion exceeding KRW 74,305 of the property tax for the second term portion of KRW 1,857,625 of the property tax for the year of the same year and the portion exceeding KRW 61,305 of the urban planning tax for the same year shall be revoked.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

There is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the Defendant imposed as indicated in the separate sheet as to the property tax for the second term of 1974 on each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “new land”) and urban planning tax on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 4, 5 among the original land.

The plaintiff's attorney, as the land was jointly owned by the plaintiffs, and since before January 14, 1974, when the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 3 (Emergency Decree No. 3 (hereinafter "Emergency Decree No. 3) for the stabilization of citizens' lives were promulgated, the land category on the public register has been cultivated. However, the land category in Article 16-1 (c) of the Emergency Decree is not the vacant land. Therefore, in imposing property tax, the defendant applied 2/100 of the statutory value of the land in the public register No. 1, 2, 312 to the land in the public list No. 3 list No. 1, 1974, and 74,305 to the land in the public list No. 4, 5, and the remaining list No. 4, 5 of urban planning tax were incorporated into the above public land and the property tax rate of 00 to the above public land was applied to the above public land. Thus, the defendant, despite the fact that the above public urban planning tax rate was applied to the above public urban planning tax rate No. 5.

In light of the above evidence No. 1 to No. 5 (O. 1 to No. 5), No. 4-1 to No. 5 (O. 2), No. 5-2 (certificate), No. 1,2-1 to No. 5-2 (certificate), and No. 3 (No dispute over all documents), each statement of No. 3 (O. 3), witness and 2-1 to verify the site of Non-Party 1 and 2, and all purport of the parties' arguments, the plaintiffs 2 as co-ownership of the plaintiffs 4, No. 966, Dec. 31, 1966, and No. 1 to 4, No. 97 were assigned to 1 to 5-year land and No. 5-year land for which No. 1 to 5-year land for which no dispute exists; the value of the land for which no dispute exists; the plaintiffs 1 to 9-year land for which no one can be found to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to cultivate.

According to Article 16(2) of the Emergency Measures Act, matters necessary for the classification of vacant land and the law shall be separately determined, and accordingly, the vacant land under Article 7(1) of the Presidential Decree No. 7042 of the 7042 of the 7042 of the 7042 of the 709.

However, it shall be excluded from the land falling under the land stipulated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Accordingly, Article 4 of the Regulations on the Land 142 of the Ministry of Home Affairs promulgated on February 26, 1974 and the Scope of Land Exclusion for Non-business Purposes of Juristic Persons and Article 4 of the Regulations on the Land Exclusion of Non-business Purposes of the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was enforced on February 26, 1974, provides that the land of this case is de facto used as farmland as of the date of commencing the payment period for the land on which crops, seedlings, ornamental trees are cultivated, cultivated or planted, or planted, and it shall not be regarded as vacant land. Accordingly, the land of this case based on the above recognized facts shall not be deemed as a land on the public register which was actually cultivated and used as farmland before January 14, 1974, for which the Emergency Measures were promulgated and enforced.

Therefore, the reasonable property tax on the land indicated in the table Nos. 1, 2, and 3 for the second period of 1974, based on the tax base grade and value of the above recognition on the land of this case is 127,312 won (1,591 square rep. x 40,000 won x 2/1000). The legitimate property tax on the land indicated in the table Nos. 4, 5 x 74,305 won (1F x 1,486 x 25,000 won x 25,100 city fishing x 2,500 x 231p. 2,231,222 of the land listed in the table Nos. 4, 5 x 1974 x 1974 x 25194 mbbebbebbebbe, 2054 x 2015 mal.

Therefore, on the premise that this case is a public land, the disposition of imposition on the part exceeding KRW 127,31,120, of the property tax on the land indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3 among the land of this case imposed by the defendant on the plaintiffs on the plaintiffs, the disposition of imposition on the part exceeding KRW 1,857,625, which is calculated above KRW 74,305, which is calculated on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 4,857,625, which is calculated on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 5, and the disposition of imposition on the maximum amount exceeding KRW 62,745, which is calculated on the above amount exceeding KRW 74,305, which is calculated on the above amount of KRW 74,305, which is calculated on the premise that this case is the land of this case, is an unlawful disposition. Accordingly, the plaintiff's main claim is with merit within the above recognition scope, and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as to the costs of lawsuit.

[Attachment]

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)