The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it erred in determining the person liable for payment of the land excess ownership charges where there are two or more lots of housing sites owned by the husband

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 21 (3) of the former Act on the Ownership of Land, on the ground that the court below erred in misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 21 (3) of the former Act on the Ownership of Land, on the ground that, as a member of the same household, the portion exceeding 660 square meters, among the housing lots owned by each household, is subject to land excess ownership charges, and where the number of housing lots is more than two parcels, the time of acquisition falls under the housing site that is late, and where the time of acquisition is the same, the time of acquisition falls under the housing site that is subject to the calculation of the land excess ownership charges from the low price from the lower housing site, and that the land excess ownership charges against the husband is illegal on the ground that the court below erred in determining the housing site

Articles 2 subparag. 3(a) and (c), 19 subparag. 1, 21(3), and 22(3) of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Act No. 4796 of Dec. 22, 194); Article 27-2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the former Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14363 of Aug. 19, 194)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Byung-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City Central Government

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu553 delivered on June 16, 1995

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) The lower court, on February 4, 193, deemed that the Plaintiff’s disposal of the instant piece of land was 1.5 square meters for 5 square meters and 4.6 square meters for 5 square meters, 62 square meters for 5 square meters and 4.6 square meters for 5 square meters for 5 square meters and 5 square meters for 4.6 square meters for 5 square meters for 5 square meters for 52 square meters for 52 square meters for 62 square meters for 4.6 square meters for 5 square meters for 5 square meters for 522 square meters for 62 square meters for 6.4 square meters for 5 square meters for 62 square meters for 5 square meters for 622 square meters for 5 square meters for 622 square meters for 5 square meters for 62 years for 4 years for 6 years for 5 years for 6 years and 5 years for 5 years for 5 years for 6 years and 5 years for 6 years for 6 years and 4 years for 6 years for 6 years for 6 years.7 years for .

(2) However, Article 2 subparag. 3(a) and (c) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site (amended by Act No. 4796, Dec. 22, 1994) regards the head of the resident registration card for each household as the members of his/her household and his/her spouse under the Resident Registration Act. Article 21(3) provides that in cases of paragraph (1), if the ownership of the housing site is two or more members of the housing site of the relevant household under subparagraph 1 of Article 19, the owner of the housing site is obligated to pay the charge in proportion to the price of the housing site. Article 22(3) provides that if the ownership of the housing site is two or more parcels, the owner of the housing site shall be deemed to be subject to the imposition of the charge from the date of acquisition to the date of acquisition to the date of acquisition of the housing site of 144 to the date of acquisition of the housing site of 200 square meters, and that the remaining amount of the housing site is more than 166.5 square meters as the Plaintiff’s price of the housing site.

Nevertheless, the decision of the court below that the disposition of this case imposing the charge on the plaintiff who is not the owner in the public record is unlawful is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to Article 21 (3) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites. Therefore, the argument that this point out is justified (as seen earlier, it is erroneous that the defendant, as seen earlier, deemed the above 2, 5, 6 and the above 3 land to be a housing site subject to the imposition of the charge. However, since the plaintiff is liable to pay the charge in proportion to the price of the above non-party 1 and the housing site, the disposition of this case against the plaintiff cannot be revoked in its entirety solely on the above ground).

(3) Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)