Examples excluded from the official land due to inappropriate construction or use;

In case where the land is publicly announced as a natural green area, its use is restricted by the Building Act, etc., and its forest status is considered to be a forest, but the planting is inappropriate even if the siteization work is required, and it is not suitable for construction or use on the technology or economy, it is reasonable to view it as the land excluded from

Article 142 (1) 2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3 subparagraph 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Plaintiff

Busan District Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Daegu High Court Decision 78Gu88 delivered on April 10, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below selected the evidence as stated in its judgment, and recognized the portion of 400 square meters, which is 168 square meters, incorporated as a road under urban planning among the 2,917 square meters of the land in this case, as a residential area, and imposed property tax and defense tax corresponding thereto. However, the remaining 2,349 square meters, which are publicly notified as a natural green belt area, are extremely limited by the Building Act, etc., and the use of the remaining part of 2,349 square meters, which is publicly notified as a natural green belt area, is extremely limited by the Building Act, etc., and it is deemed that the existing forest is still in the state of forests and fields, and the ground is inappropriate for the cultivation of mameras trees, etc., with a view to conducting construction, it should be prior to the construction of stone, retaining wall, cutting, or filling-up, etc., with heavy expenses, and thus, it is reasonable to revoke the disposition of imposition of local tax as well as the local tax as prescribed in Article 142 (1) 16, Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

If the evidence adopted by the court below was examined by comparison with the records, the part on the land of 2,349 square meters in this case should be excluded from the object of official land in light of its location and shape on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and it cannot be deemed that the court below erred in the value of evidence as stated in the theory of lawsuit or erred in the decision on the economic feasibility of the land of this case.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)