(a) the meaning of the land that is excluded from the public land, "the use of which is prohibited by the purpose";

(b) Scope of the proviso to Article 78-3 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;

A. Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 289, Mar. 21, 1979) provides that "any land, the use of which is prohibited by construction and its use, and any land for which one year and six months have not passed from the date on which the prohibition is cancelled pursuant to the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes" shall be excluded from the public place of taxation. The above "the use of which is prohibited by the purpose of use" includes a case where the land owner is able to actually use the whole or part of the land due to the statutory limitation on the whole or part of the land, even if the restrictions result in the temporary, partial, or limited use of the land, so long as the use of the land is prohibited directly or indirectly, Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act is applied.

B. The proviso of Article 78-3 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act is a provision newly established at the time of amendment of January 23, 1979, and it is reasonable to interpret that the proviso applies to cases where the farmer changes the land in the land in the land readjustment project district after January 14, 1974.

Article 188 (1) 1 (3) of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 3160 of Apr. 16, 1979), Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9439 of Apr. 27, 1979), Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act No. 289 of Mar. 21, 1979)

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu221 Decided August 8, 1980, 80Nu602 Decided February 24, 1981, 80Nu602 Decided December 24, 1981, 81Nu89 Decided December 8, 1981, 81Nu64 Decided December 22, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 200Hun-Ga40 delivered on September 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu326 delivered on February 17, 1981

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

1. The plaintiff's attorney's first ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the land of this case was designated as commercial area and its commercial area and its construction was restricted pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Building Act and Article 170(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from May 22, 1978 to November 15, 1979, and the construction of commercial buildings of not less than 132 square meters, which are not less than 132 square meters, as commercial buildings and detached houses. However, the plaintiff can not be viewed as the land of this case from October 1972 to March 28, 1978, where the plaintiff continued planting trees such as bank trees, etc., and the land of this case, which had been registered as landscape business and sales business of ornamental water and continued to use the land of this case as its place of business, and there was no dispute between the parties, and the plaintiff cannot be viewed as impeding the use of the construction restriction under Article 17 of the Local Tax Act.

However, since Article 18(1)1(3) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3160, Apr. 16, 1979); Article 142(1)1(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9439, Apr. 27, 1979), which was enforced at the time of this case, provides that the land which was prohibited from being constructed and used for its purpose and its use pursuant to subparagraph 1(1) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 289, Mar. 21, 1979; Ordinance No. 2816, Apr. 16, 197; Ordinance No. 2019, Aug. 28, 197; Ordinance No. 2019, Feb. 19, 208>

2. The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the proviso of Article 78-3 and subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 78-1, Jan. 23, 1979) shall be applied in cases where there is a change in the cultivator of the land in the land rearrangement project district after January 14, 1974. Thus, even if there are the above provisions, it does not affect the recognition of the land excluded from the public land of 212.78 square meters, which was used from Oct. 10, 1972 as a seed packing. The above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore the argument is groundless.

3. Therefore, without examining the Plaintiff’s other grounds of appeal, the part against the Plaintiff among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)