Whether "the use of land is limited by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes after acquisition of the land," if construction has become practically impossible after the land in the process of land partitioning has been designated as an urban design area.

Even if acquiring land in the course of the execution of a land readjustment project, if it is practically impossible to construct the land above due to the designation of an urban design zone in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the administrative measures for the reservation of building permission therefor, it constitutes "where the use is restricted by the provisions of statutes after acquiring the land".

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365 of May 30, 192); Article 8-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and six others

Director of the District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu17107 delivered on May 19, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, according to the approval of the execution of the land readjustment project by Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 20, 1968, each of the land of this case was incorporated into the zone for the Kimpo-Subdivision rearrangement project, and the plaintiffs acquired each of the land of this case from August 14, 1985 to October 2 of the same year. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor announced the designation of each of the land of this case under Article 8-2 of the former Building Act on February 4, 1987, and the Kimpo-Subdivision rearrangement project was completed on August 27, 1990, but the construction permission was reserved for the reason that construction is impossible because the urban design was not finalized until December 31, 1990.

According to Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where the use after acquiring land is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of statutes after the acquisition of land, it shall not be deemed idle land, etc. for three years from the date of prohibition or restriction of the use thereof. Although the plaintiffs acquired each land of this case during the implementation of a land readjustment project, if it is virtually impossible to construct the above construction due to the designation of an urban design zone in Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor and the administrative measures for reservation of construction permission therefor, separate from the above land readjustment project, it constitutes a case where the use is restricted by the provisions of statutes after acquiring land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14738, Jan. 28, 1994). Furthermore, according to Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Addenda of the same Enforcement Decree (Presidential Decree No. 13198, Dec. 31, 1990).

Therefore, the court below's conclusion that each of the lands of this case cannot be seen as idle land which is subject to the land excess profit tax is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)