In a case where there are parts not used for actual residence among the residential buildings of the Gu, whether it constitutes a high-class house under Article 84-3 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be determined only on the basis of the remaining parts except for this (affirmative)

According to Articles 76(3) and 77 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, if a public register is registered as a residential building but actually used for a non-residential purpose, only the part used for a non-residential purpose shall be deemed a house. The above provision shall apply to determining which building constitutes a high-class house under Article 84-3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, if a building has a part not used for a real residential purpose, it shall be determined on the basis of only the remaining part except for the part.

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act, Articles 76(3), 77, and 84-3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu648 Delivered on January 20, 1987

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Young-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6561 delivered on October 18, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence that recognized the fact that the plaintiff leased the above attached building to others and allowed them to use it as a photographor or computer, since it was ordered to order the building of this case, and rejected the evidence in violation of the records that the court below was just and there was no error of law of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the arguments. We find that the court below's evidence and finding of facts are without merit, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the arguments.

2. According to Articles 76(3) and 77 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, if the public register is registered as a residential building but actually used for a non-residential purpose, only the part used for a residential purpose shall be deemed a house. The above provision shall be applied to determining which building constitutes a high-class house under Article 84-3(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, if a building has a part not used for a residential purpose, it shall be determined on the basis of only the remaining part except for the part used for a real residential purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu648 delivered on January 20, 1987). On the premise of the above opinion, the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to whether the building constitutes a high-class house under the Enforcement Decree of the same Act depending on the size of the remaining part except for the above annexed building among the buildings in this case. The argument is inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

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

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)