The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

1. Property tax imposed on land is divided into aggregate taxation subject to general aggregate taxation, separate taxation subject to separate taxation, and separate taxation subject to taxation (Article 106(1) of the Local Tax Act prior to amendment by Act No. 12153, Jan. 1, 2014); land annexed to a specific building shall be subject to the tax rate lower than that subject to general aggregate taxation subject to separate taxation (Articles 106(1)2(a), 111(1)1(b), and 113(1)2 of the Local Tax Act). Furthermore, the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act enacted upon delegation by the Local Tax Act includes not only the buildings completed in the land annexed to the building subject to separate aggregate taxation, but also the land annexed to the building under construction, which has been suspended for six months or more without justifiable grounds as of the tax base date.

Article 101(1)2 and Article 103(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24425, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act”) have been subsequently amended, but this is also the same as the current Act and subordinate statutes. Here, the term “building under construction” refers to a building under construction by starting construction works as of the tax base date.

Although it is not only when a simple preparatory work necessary for the commencement of construction is being performed, if it can be deemed that the new construction of a building was actually performed at that time when the construction of a building is performed, as well as when the construction for the construction of a new building is commenced, such as the excavation of the ground or the construction of a structure, if it is essential for the construction of a new building to do so.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7857 delivered on September 26, 1995, etc.). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts. A.

The plaintiff is a housing construction business.