logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1983. 4. 12. 선고 82누190 판결
[재산세부과처분취소][공1983.6.1.(705),825]
Main Issues

The meaning of "land on which a lawsuit is pending" excluded from the public land.

Summary of Judgment

"Land for which a lawsuit is pending" in Article 142 (1) 1 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is excluded from the vacant land over which property tax is heavy pursuant to Article 188 (1) 1 and 3 of the Local Tax Act, refers to land, the use of which is prohibited by the court, and the land for which a lawsuit is pending, does not fall under this.

[Reference Provisions]

Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act subparagraph 8 of Article 78-3

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 76Nu149 delivered on October 12, 1976, Supreme Court Decision 82Nu32 delivered on April 27, 1982

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant at the Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu592 delivered on March 16, 1982

Text

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In accordance with Article 188 (1) 1 Item 3 of the Local Tax Act, the term "land on which a lawsuit is pending" and "land on which a lawsuit is pending" under Article 142 (1) 1 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is excluded from the vacant land on which property tax is heavy pursuant to Article 188 (1) 1 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, refers to only the land, the use of which is prohibited by a court, which is the case of a party member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Nu149 and 82Nu32, Apr. 27, 1982), and on the other hand, the court below's revocation of the defendant's disposition and disposition of the property tax against the plaintiff cannot be erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the concept of the vacant land under the Local Tax Act, and there is a reasonable ground for appeal.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the legal ground of the judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow