[1] Whether the procedure for permission for changing the form and quality of land constitutes "a case where the use is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Act or subordinate statutes" in a case where certain conditions are required to be satisfied (negative)

[2] The case holding that the land which can not obtain permission for changing its form and quality due to the lack of urban infrastructure such as road and waterworks does not constitute "the use of land is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the law"

[1] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in a case where the use is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, even though the direct use of the land itself is not prohibited or restricted by the Act and subordinate statutes, the land in question includes a case where construction is practically impossible due to the prohibition of change of form and quality by the upper statutes or by the regulations of administrative agencies based on the above laws and regulations, etc. However, even if the change of form and quality of the land in question requires that the procedure for permission for change of form and quality shall meet certain conditions of conditions, such restriction is not a special restriction on the land in question.

[2] The case holding that even if it is impossible to obtain permission to change the form and quality of forest land within a general residential area without urban infrastructure such as roads and waterworks, it does not constitute "a case where the use of land is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act" under the proviso of Article 4 (2) of the Rules on the Standards, etc. for Permission to Change the Form and Quality of Land (amended by the Ordinance No. 547 of Feb. 17, 1994) on the ground that the use of land is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of Article 8 (2) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[1] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act / [2] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2995 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 848), 93Nu17591 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1367), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu233 delivered on January 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 688), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1713 delivered on July 30, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2718)

Hongnam-si

Head of the Do Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu29180 delivered on February 8, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14470 of Dec. 31, 194) where the use is prohibited or restricted under the above Act and subordinate statutes, the land in question includes cases where construction is substantially impossible due to the prohibition of change of form and quality due to the above Act and subordinate statutes or the regulations of administrative agencies based thereon, even though the direct use of the land in question is not prohibited or restricted by the above Act and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu2995 delivered on Jan. 25, 1994, 93Nu17591 delivered on Mar. 25, 1994). However, even if the change of form and quality of the land in question is not practically prohibited by statutes or the regulations of administrative agencies, the procedure for permission to change the form and quality of the land in question must be met not by any special restriction but by any restriction.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff was a general residential area from the time when the plaintiff acquired the land of this case 12,182 square meters and a group of lands adjacent thereto from the end of the taxable period to the end of March 23, 1989, and that the use of the land was not equipped with urban infrastructure, such as roads and waterworks. The court below determined that the forest of this case is not a special restriction on the change of form and quality of the forest of this case because the land belonging to a general residential area was not equipped with urban infrastructure, and the land of this case was not equipped with urban infrastructure, but it is not possible to obtain permission even if the application for change of form and quality was filed under the joint development of neighboring land owners, but it is not a specific restriction on the change of form and quality of the forest of this case.

In light of the records and the legal principles as seen above, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there is no error of law as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. There is no reason

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)