[1] The elements for a taxation disposition that misleads the facts of the taxation requirements to the effect that the taxation disposition is void as a matter of course

[2] The case holding that the disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, etc. on a private road subject to non-taxation shall not be null and void automatically on the ground that the defects in the disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax can not be seen as apparent externally, in case where the imposition of aggregate land tax, etc. is serious defects, but it can only be determined by specifically whether the part of the land in question

[1] Generally, a tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relation (income or act) which is subject to taxation shall be deemed to have a significant and apparent defect. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that could mislead him to believe that it is subject to taxation with respect to any legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation or not, it cannot be deemed to have been apparent in appearance even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have been null and void as a matter of course.

[2] The case holding that the disposition of imposition of aggregate land tax, etc. on a private road subject to non-taxation shall not be null and void automatically on the ground that the defect in the disposition of imposition can not be deemed to be apparent externally, in case where the imposition of aggregate land tax, etc. is serious defect, but it can be determined by specifically as to whether the part of the disputed land constitutes a private road

[1] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 234-12 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4795 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 194-7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 234-12 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4795 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 194-7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da35787 decided Feb. 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1414), Supreme Court Decision 95Da20379 decided Dec. 20, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 336), Supreme Court Decision 97Da31144 decided Jan. 23, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 589), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12634 decided Jun. 26, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2024)

A hotel lot Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorney Jeon Il-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na42973 delivered on February 16, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and determined that the part of the land in the dispute in this case, other than the part, constitutes a private road subject to non-taxation based on the usage categories under the Local Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and thus, the Defendants imposed the individual land tax, urban planning tax, and education tax for the year 192 and 193. However, there are significant defects in the disposition of imposition. However, the part of the land in this case is often used by the users of the part surrounding the department stores, hotels, amusement facilities, etc., which are owned by the plaintiffs, and there are many auxiliary facilities, such as flowers and events, which are installed by the plaintiffs for their customers. On the ground, whether the part of the land in this case constitutes a non-taxation private road can only be determined by specifically by ascertaining not only the customers who use the above facilities owned by the plaintiffs, but also the general public, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above defect is apparent that the disposition of imposition of the aggregate land tax in this case, etc.

2. A tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relation (income or act) which is subject to taxation generally is significant and apparent. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances to mislead him as to any legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation, and where it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relation, whether it is subject to taxation or not, it cannot be deemed as apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a rightful invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da31144, Jan. 23, 1998).

Upon examining the records on the premise of these legal principles, we affirm the fact-finding and decision of the court below that the plaintiffs' serious defects exist in the disposition of this case, but it cannot be seen as apparently clear, and it is not unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal (However, it is inappropriate for the court of first instance to determine the scope of private roads among the land in this case as of April 1, 199, which is not at the time of the disposition of this case, based on the status of the first instance court's on-site inspection date, which is not at the time of the disposition of this case. However, how to determine the scope of private roads among the land in this case is not related to the conclusion of this case).

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)