Whether it may be excluded from the public place where there is no recognition by the competent authority that the land is inappropriate for construction or use (affirmative)

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 78-3 (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986) consider land inappropriate for construction or use in technology or economy as the location or form prescribed by Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 78-3 (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986), Article 78-3 (10) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu143 Delivered on April 12, 1983

Plaintiff

The head of the Incheon Metropolitan City North Korea;

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu183 Decided August 18, 1987

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1188 delivered on November 3, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 78-3 (10) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986) indicate that land unsuitable for construction or use in technology or economy can be excluded from public land (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu105 delivered on Nov. 24, 1987), so long as land inappropriate for construction or use is seen as land, it is excluded from public land even if there is no recognition by the head of the competent Si/Gun/Gu (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu143 delivered on Apr. 12, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the land in this case is a sloping hill of a sloping area with a high surface in a residential area or the area of the land in which the surface is 10 meters or more because the surface is low, and the surface is 4 meters away from the playground of a nearby commercial high school, and that there is a sloping with a large of 4 meters in the surface, and that there is a sloping village in the military village, and there is no sewerage system and no access road with a large of 6 meters in the planned width under the urban planning is opened in the south side of the land in this case. However, in order to adjust the land in this case into a site, the court below held that the land in this case constitutes an unlawful disposition under Article 78-13 (proviso) or 14 (proviso) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as the land in this case, which is not suitable for the use of the land in this case as stipulated in Article 68-1 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

In light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below as to the adoption of evidence and the process of fact-finding, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out by the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the above Article as well as the above opinion of the court below.

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

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)