The case holding that the land does not constitute land to be excluded from the vacant land

If a building suitable for the purpose of designation has not been constructed on the land which belongs to the residential area and the Class IV aesthetic district due to the execution of a land readjustment project for a specific period from the completion date of construction work, the said land falls under the vacant land of Article 188 (1) 1 and 3 of the Local Tax Act, and the main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the above land falls under the vacant land of the main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the restriction of traffic has been made by installing iron books on the road site abutting on the above land in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, or the noise pollution of vehicles driving on the above road is serious, or the above land falls under the Class IV aesthetic district is difficult to view that it falls

Article 18(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 142(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff

The head of Gangseo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu305 delivered on October 15, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on its macrofication, found that the land at the original city was located in the land readjustment project district, which was enforced on January 18, 1968 by the public notice of the Construction Part 6, and was designated as substitute land under the public notice No. 57 of March 16, 1970 as the result of the implementation of the above project, so it became possible to construct the land as it was actually completed on a sectional unit on October 18, 1976. Further, this land belongs to the residential area and the fourth aesthetic district after the implementation of the above project. However, the plaintiff acquired this land on September 6, 1975, and did not construct the building on the above ground after two years from the completion date of the above construction work, and it is hard to find that the above land belongs to the above public health construction of the above and the second residential district or the second residential district on which the construction of the building was permitted on the above construction of the above land, and it is difficult to recognize that the above land belongs to the construction of the construction of the new residential area and second residential district on the above Article 18 (7).

It is not appropriate that the Supreme Court Decision 80Nu240 Decided March 10, 1981 differs from this case.

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 on the bench.

Justices Shin Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)