(a) The case holding that even if a building site was leased to be used as a wood station or a safy manufacturing factory, it is merely a temporary use and thus constitutes merely a public use;

B. Whether Article 78-3 subparag. 5(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (No. 280 of Jan. 23, 1979) violates the parent-related Acts and subordinate statutes and thus invalid (negative)

A. In light of Article 188(1) and (3) of the Local Tax Act and Article 142(1)1(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1981, Dec. 31, 1981) of the same Act, the use of the vacant land is not continuous, and the use of the land is not limited if it is temporary. Although the use of the land is temporary, the use of the land is adjacent to the change that is in progress by the subway Corporation, and the land is enclosed by a house or commercial building on a 12-month basis with the above small household building, which is leased to others and used as a wood station and a flusium manufacturing factory, even if the lessee of the site of this case had a tax payment according to each business performance, this constitutes temporary use, not de facto, in light of the category, location, form, and method of use of the site of this case.

B. The purpose of Article 78-3 subparag. 5 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 280 of Jan. 23, 1979) is to exclude the land from taxable objects which are advantageous to taxpayers, even though it is public, in a case where the use of land by a fluor manufacturing place, etc. falls under the case of temporary use, and there is a uniform and clear criterion for determining whether it is a tax performance, such as the direct use and the value-added tax, by the use of the land, even though it is public, so this provision cannot be deemed as a restrictive provision disadvantageous to taxpayers beyond

Article 188(1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 188(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 142(1)1(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 78-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663, Jan. 23, 1979); Article 78 subparag. 5(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 280, Jan. 23, 1979);

Supreme Court Decision 79Nu158 Delivered on August 14, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Gwanak-gu Office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu679 delivered on November 9, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above 10,00 won and 10,000 won and 20,000 won of the above 17-10,000 won and 17-10,000 won of the above 17-10,000 won and 4-10,000 won of the above 7-1,000 won of the land were not owned by the plaintiff 1-7,000,000 won of the above 1-7,000,000 won of the above 1-7,000,000,0000 won and 1-7,000,000 won of the above 1-7,000,000 won of the above 1-7,000,000 won of the land and 1-7,000 won of the above 2-7,000 won of the land and 1-7,000.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)