Whether it can be proved by a method other than the method of proof under Article 78-3 subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of December 31, 1986) that the current state of land subject to property tax is farmland other than miscellaneous land from the original (affirmative)

According to the main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 78-3 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986), if the present state of land subject to property tax is farmland not miscellaneous land, it is naturally excluded from the public land, so it is not necessary to determine whether the present state falls under land to be excluded from the public land of the above Enforcement Rule. However, if the present state is farmland in fact, not farmland in the middle of the original state, it is excluded from the public land only if it is proved by the method of proof prescribed by the above Enforcement Rule. Thus, whether it is farmland from the original date should be proved by any method other than the method of proof prescribed by the above Enforcement Rule.

구 지방세법시행령(1986.12.31. 대통령령 제12028ㅗ로 개정되기 전의 것) 제142조 제1항 제1호 (6)목 , 구 지방세법시행규칙(1986.12.31. 내무부령 제452호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제78조의3 제3호

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu464 delivered on October 31, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the disposition of this case was unlawful, based on the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence, etc., which are acknowledged based on the evidence, and around 100 square meters of the land of this case in approximately 1,200 square meters, and some of the remaining land are cultivated and remain in the form of a arable field at the time of the taxation of this case, but it was confirmed that the land of this case remains in the form of a arable field at the time of the taxation of this case, and that the defendant's disposition of this case was against the public land subject to heavy taxation of property tax even though the land of this case is farmland not its original site or miscellaneous land. In light of the records, the

With respect to the second ground:

According to the main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Article 78-3 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986), if the present state of land subject to property tax is farmland not miscellaneous land, it shall be excluded from the original state of land, and it shall be determined whether the land falls under the land to be excluded from the official land of the above Enforcement Rule. However, if the present state is farmland in fact, not farmland in the middle of the original state, it shall be excluded from the public land only if it is proved by the verification method of the above Enforcement Rule. Thus, whether the land is originally farmland shall be proved by any method other than that of the above Enforcement Rule.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just in accordance with the grounds for reversal of party members, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged.

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 Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)