Whether land actually being used as an attached parking lot prior to the enforcement of the Parking Lot Act is excluded from the subject of the excessive ownership charges.

According to Article 2 subparag. 1(b) and Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 3 subparag. 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1382 of May 10, 193), Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, land within the minimum standard area under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among land owned by a corporation, shall be excluded from the subject of excess ownership charges. In this case, the term "attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act" refers to an attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act among land owned by the corporation, the land category of which is a site, which is a land category within the minimum standard area under the provisions of Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. In addition, when considering the purpose of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites and the purpose of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites to ensure the stability of the residential life of the people, it shall be interpreted as a parking lot that meets the requirements of the attached parking lot.

Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, Article 3 subparagraph 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13882 of May 10, 1993), Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Decree of the Liquor's Own Act

Attorney Park Jin-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu8773 delivered on November 17, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) and Article 19 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites (hereinafter “Act”), Article 3 and subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1382, May 10, 1993), Article 19 of the Parking Lot Act, and Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the amount of excess ownership shall be imposed on land which is not constructed on a permanent building among land owned by a corporation, and an attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act, which is within the minimum standard area under Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among those attached parking lots under the Parking Lot Act, shall be excluded from its imposition. In this case, the term “attached parking lot under the Parking Lot Act” prior to the enactment of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites to ensure the stability of the residential life of citizens and by promoting the supply of housing sites, the amount of excess ownership charges shall be imposed on land which is not constructed on the land owned by the corporation, but after the establishment of the parking lot under the Act No. 1716.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the use as the parking lot for the above building since the acquisition of the land of this case after July 28, 1969 after acquiring the building for the shop use as the parking lot for the above building at the time of original adjudication on May 3, 1973. The plaintiff reported the land of this case to the defendant on June 1, 1990 as the parking lot for the above building. The above land of this case was excluded from the object of imposition of charges pursuant to the provisions of the above related Acts and subordinate statutes as an attached parking lot under the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act after recognizing the fact that the above land falls within the minimum standard area under the provisions of Article 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Parking Lot Act, and determined that the annexed parking lot under the Parking Lot Act is an annexed parking lot under the above related Acts and subordinate statutes after reporting to the building permission office or obtaining permission from it. The plaintiff's assertion that it cannot be recognized as an annexed parking lot before reporting after the disposition of this case under the Parking Lot Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as points out in the lawsuit. We do not have merit.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)