The case holding that the land excluded from the vacant land under subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act is the land

In commercial areas, parking-maintenance areas, and aesthetic districts, land which cannot be constructed without passing through a vehicle is surrounded by the land owned by another person, so no building permit is granted, and no compromise is made with owners of the surrounding land or joint construction with regard to the establishment of an access road to the surrounding land, and if it is impossible to construct such land, the land shall be excluded from the vacant land as "land, the use of which is prohibited by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and the construction and use of which is prohibited by the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes" under subparagraph 1 (a) of Article 78-3

Subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1027 decided May 6, 198

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the land of this case, including the land of this case, is not constructed without the passage of a motor vehicle because it is a commercial area, parking zone, and aesthetic district, and the land of this case, which is not constructed without the passage of a motor vehicle. The land of this case, like the original adjudication, is not constructed due to the passage of a motor vehicle because it is surrounded by another's land, and the construction permission is not granted to the owner of the surrounding land, and the building cannot be constructed because a compromise on the joint construction or the opening of a road for access to a motor vehicle is not reached, and the above land of this case ( Address 1 omitted) is excluded from the vacant land of Article 78-3 (1) 1 (i) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as the "land, the use of which is prohibited by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes," and it is not justified in finding any violation of the laws and subordinate statutes of this case, and it is not justified in the judgment of the court below as above.

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)