1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the part determined additionally in the following paragraphs. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Two pages 18 and 19 shall be understood as "each of the dispositions in this case except for the disposition of imposition against F)".

The plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant lands is farmland, it cannot be subject to urban planning tax, and each of the instant dispositions against this is null and void.

First, according to Article 235(1) of the former Local Tax Act, Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 112(1) of the current Local Tax Act, and Article 111 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, farmland such as a dry field is excluded from taxation of urban planning tax or property tax.

However, according to Article 119, etc. of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, where the current status of registration on a taxable article is different from the current status, property tax, etc. must be imposed

Furthermore, in a case where there are objective reasons to believe that certain legal relations or facts which are not subject to taxation are subject to taxation, and where it can only be clarified whether it is subject to taxation or not, it cannot be said that it is apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact of taxation requirements is null and void as a matter of course.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7268 Decided September 4, 2002, etc.). With respect to the instant case, it is not sufficient to recognize that the current state of each of the instant lands was farmland for a period from 2007 to 2013 even based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Moreover, the above evidence and the evidence set forth above are Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 12.