[1] The meaning of "when a business under Article 23 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act is actually completed in a unit of partition"

[2] Whether the ground for not obtaining a building permit due to the failure to register a substitute substitute payment due to the unpaid substitute payment amount constitutes "where the use is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes excluded from idle land under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act" (negative)

[1] "When a project under Article 23 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act is actually completed in a unit of partition" refers to the point at which the use of the pertinent land is possible, such as construction after completion of construction work. In addition to the completion of land suspension work, when the water supply and drainage work, such as road works and water supply and drainage work, is completed to the extent that it is good even if it is enforced to use the land in accordance with the purpose of the land, it shall not be deemed that the completion of construction work is a unit of partition, and it shall not be deemed that

[2] If the payment period for the land substitution is extended for the convenience of the landowner, and it is nothing more than the reservation of the entrustment registration for the transfer of ownership until the full payment period for securing the claim for the liquidation money, the landowner can construct the land on his own after the payment period for the liquidation money by obtaining a construction permit at any time after the full payment of the liquidation money. Thus, there is no limitation or de facto restriction on the law that cannot be constructed until the full payment of the liquidation money.

[1] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act / [2] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8160 delivered on May 24, 1994 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14714 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 852), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1964 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1363 delivered on February 9, 1996)

The scope of subparagraph 1

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu15502 Delivered on March 8, 1996

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu11558 delivered on November 27, 1996

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

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) are examined as follows.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14472 of Dec. 31, 1994) provide that where the relevant land is incorporated into a land readjustment project district under the Land Rearrangement Projects Act after the acquisition of land, the period from the date of designation as the project district until the date of actual completion of the project unit, and in this case, the period from the date of actual completion of the project shall be regarded as the date of acquisition of the relevant land and the period of two to three years from the date of acquisition shall be regarded as the type of the building, etc., and the period from the date of actual completion of the project shall not be regarded as the idle land, respectively. In this case, the term "when actual completion of the project" refers to the time of use of the relevant land, such as construction, etc., after the completion of the land suspension work, the completion of the construction work is sufficient to compel the use of the relevant land by public inspection, public announcement and other interested parties.

The decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the "when the business is actually completed in the unit of partition" under Article 23 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act. It is not justified.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized that the land of three lots, including five large 216 square meters, in Songpa-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and 5 large 216 square meters, owned by the plaintiff, was completed in addition to the completion of the land suspension work on June 13, 1987. In light of the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence. The arguments are without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

As legally determined by the court below, when a land readjustment project for the whole land owned by the plaintiff was completed on December 22, 198, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City had the land owner, including the plaintiff, pay in full the liquidation amount for the excessive area by July 31, 1989. However, upon the request of the land owner for an extension of payment period, the liquidation amount shall be repaid in equal installments for five years from July 31, 1990 to July 31, 1994. If the land owner needs a construction permit in full, the registration of the liquidation amount shall be reserved until the full payment of the liquidation amount for 40% (two minutes) or more of the liquidation amount after the request for the registration of the land substitution and the construction permit shall be granted to the plaintiff. The same applies to the land owner who did not receive the restriction of the construction permit in full by the time limit of 90% until the date of the above construction permit by the time limit of 194.

4. On the fourth ground for appeal

The argument that the decision of the officially assessed individual land price of January 1, 1991 on the land, etc. owned by the Plaintiff was unlawful is a new fact that the Plaintiff asserted only when it was in the first instance trial, and it is evident that there was no assertion in the original judgment, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. The argument also has

5. 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 Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)