Where owners have established a building jointly owned by the owners on different lands, the standards for calculating the area of land equivalent to idle land as a land annexed to the building.

According to Articles 23, 3, 4(1) and (3), 8(1)4(a) and 13 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, Article 11(1)4(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 8(1)4(a) of the same Act and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in calculating the area of land corresponding to idle land, etc. as the land on two or more lots of land adjacent to the building, and the land is settled on the basis of the total floor area of the building, in calculating the area of the land corresponding to idle land, etc., if the owner of the land is mutually different, and the owner of the land is sharing a building, it is reasonable to regard the entire two or more lots of land as the land annexed to the building, and calculate it based on the total floor area of the building.

Articles 3, 4(1) and (3), 8(1)4(a), 8(1)13(a), and 23 of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act; Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Plaintiff

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu31240 delivered on June 23, 1993

The appeal is dismissed. The cost of appeal is assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant litigation performer are also examined.

The court below acknowledged that the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 jointly owned 428.5 square meters of the land of this case and 436.4 square meters of the land owned by three persons, including non-party 1, the plaintiff and the above non-party 1 jointly owned the building of this case (floor area of 335.57 square meters). According to Articles 23, 3, 4(1)3, and 8(1)4(a)13 of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, and Article 11(1)4(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 8(1)4(a) of the same Act and Article 11(1) of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the court below determined that in calculating the area of the land corresponding to idle land, etc., the land of this case was settled on two or more lots connected to the building, and the owner of the land of this case is different, and it does not exceed the entire standard area of the building of this case as the whole area of the land.

In light of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legislative intent of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act or the legal principles of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason

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

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)