(a) The meaning of “land attached to a house” as provided in Article 194-15(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

B. Whether the provisions of the above paragraph (a) violate the mother Act or Article 234-15 (2) 5 of the same Act

(a) For the purpose of Article 194-15 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the term “land annexed to a house” means the land annexed to a house for which a boundary is crossed out due to a wall or fence, etc., not the land in the public record book or the building permit;

B. According to the delegation of Article 194-15(3)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the scope of the land attached to the house as one of the private property stipulated in the same subparagraph pursuant to the delegation of Article 234-15(2)5 of the same Act, even if the land was uniformly determined as the land above a certain area without considering specific circumstances, such as the restriction or prohibition of construction due to the restriction of the Urban Planning Act and the Building Act, the scope of the excess land and the land price, the above provision of the Enforcement Decree of the above Local Tax Act does not violate the parent law or the above provision of the Local Tax Act does not violate the relevant

Article 234-15 (2) 5 of the Local Tax Act and Article 194-15 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Plaintiff

The head of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu5770 delivered on September 18, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts in full view of the evidences: (a) as of June 1, 1990, the plaintiff owned a building area of 350 square meters ( Address 1 omitted); (b) 350 square meters ( Address 2 omitted); (c) 291 square meters wide and 291 square meters wide and publicly announced as an urban planning facility (road) on January 18, 1969; and (d) there is a restriction on land use, such as construction, etc., as the above ( Address 3 omitted); and (b) excluding this, the plaintiff newly constructed two-story houses on both lots of the above three lots of land and constructed a fence around the above three lots of land; and (c) installed it for convenience of the above house; and (d) the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the land of this case and the land attached to the above 6th portion of the building site, which exceeds the boundary of the above 162 square meters as the land subject to separate taxation.

In addition, even if Article 20 (1) 3 and 4 of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites provides that construction of housing sites or their excessive area of ownership is impossible or impossible under the Building Act or other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall not be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of Article 194-15 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the aggregate land tax imposed on the owner by deeming that the owner has a capacity to pay taxes in addition to suppressing excessive ownership of land subject to taxation, and it shall not be interpreted in accordance with the above provisions of the Act on the Ownership of Housing Sites, and Article 194-15 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which sets the scope of the land attached to housing as one of private property under the same subparagraph pursuant to the delegation of Article 234-15 (2) 5 of the Local Tax Act, even if the land is determined to be more than a certain area of land without uniformly considering the specific conditions such as restriction, prohibition, or scope and land price exceeding the area of the land.

All arguments are without merit.

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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)