[1] Criteria for determining whether a building is a "land annexed to a building" under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site

[2] The case holding that the parking lot or warehouse site located between a market building site and a road shall be excluded from the subject of imposition of excess ownership charges on the housing site as land annexed to the market building

[1] Whether the land constitutes “land annexed to a building” under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Site shall not be determined on the basis of whether the pertinent land was a land annexed to the building since the time when the building was constructed, or whether it was acquired after the new construction of the building, but shall be objectively determined on the basis of the actual use status during the period of the imposition of the charges for excess ownership.

[2] The case holding that in case where a market owner acquired a land located between a market site and a road, and used a steel tent, asbestos slate, and stack temporary structure on the ground as a store in the market to open the market, and used it as a Schlage's warehouse in the market, and received the notice of the charge for excess ownership on the ground, and received the notice of the charge for modification of urban planning facilities and the cadastral approval for modification of the plan for modification of the plan for urban planning facilities and the fact that the land was immediately changed to the market site, the land shall be excluded from the imposition of the charge for excess ownership pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Ownership of the Housing Site because it constitutes a group of land along with the market building site,

[1] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 3 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites / [2] Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2692 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 410) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8372 delivered on December 27, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 704) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1149 delivered on July 14, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2823), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14753 delivered on March 25, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1243) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu19499 delivered on May 28, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 1997Ha, 1897)

Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu3990 delivered on February 14, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Whether a building constitutes “land annexed to a building” excluded from the imposition of a charge for excess ownership (hereinafter referred to as “charges”) under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites is not determined depending on whether the relevant land was land annexed to the building since the time the building was constructed, or whether it was acquired after the new construction of the building, but should be objectively determined based on the actual use status during the period of the imposition of the charge (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu8372, Dec. 27, 1994; 95Nu149, Jul. 14, 1995; 95Nu2692, Dec. 12, 1995).

According to the facts and records established by the court below, with respect to 14 m3,472 m2 on May 10, 197, Daegu-dong, Daegu-dong, 597, the plaintiff obtained permission to establish a peace market on the same m24 m2 on the same m20 m2, 1981, and operated the market by constructing stores, offices, etc on the ground. On December 28, 1978, the plaintiff acquired a 19 m27 m2 in the same m2 located between the above market site and the road (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") and used a parking lot for the merchants and customers of the peace market and the customers of the same m27 m2 in which the land of this case was changed to 19 m2, 195 m2, 195 m2, and the land of this case was changed to 190 m25 m2, 1995 m2.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the land in this case was within a general residential area excluded from the market site at the time of the determination of urban planning facilities in 1974 due to the fact that the land in this case was additionally incorporated as a market site on December 11, 1995, and it cannot be deemed as the land annexed to the building in this peace market. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the land annexed to the building under Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the argument

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)