Whether the land without a passage leading to a contribution constitutes grounds for exclusion from the public notice of Article 78-3 subparagraph 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of December 31, 1986).

If a person who acquired the ownership of the land without a passage leading to a public road fails to use the land for the mere reason that there is no land leading to a public road without any attempt for the construction of a passage through the right to passage over surrounding land, it cannot be deemed that the land could not be used due to a cause not attributable to the owner of the land, which is a ground for exclusion from the public road under Article 78-3 (20) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 196).

Article 219(1) of the Civil Act, Article 78-3 subparag. 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu648 Decided July 10, 1984

Plaintiff

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Affairs

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu97 delivered on October 24, 1986

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land of this case was unlawful under Article 28 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, since it was actually impossible for the plaintiff to use the land of this case in the status of another person without a road connected to the land of this case, since it was actually impossible for the plaintiff to use the land of this case in the status of another person under the name of the plaintiff after obtaining a license for reclamation of public waters from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on April 1975 and obtaining authorization for completion of construction on November 24 of the same year, and the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the plaintiff, and as of the starting date of the property tax payment period of this case, the remaining road is lost as of the starting date of the property tax payment period of this case, and the land of this case is set aside in the south, where it is no longer natural village (e.g., a mountain road) and the land of this case.

However, in a case where there is no passage between a certain land and a public road for the use of the surrounding land, the owner of the surrounding land cannot access the public road without passing through the surrounding land or requires excessive expenses, and if necessary, the passage can be established (Article 219(1) of the Civil Act). Therefore, if a person who acquired the ownership of the surrounding land without a passage leading to the public road without passing through the public road without passing through the surrounding land, leaves the surrounding land without using it merely because there is no passage leading to the public road without passing through the public road without passing through the public road under Article 78-3 subparag. 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (Article 78-3 subparag. 20 of the former Local Tax Act), it cannot be deemed that the owner of the surrounding land was unable to use the surrounding land due to a cause not attributable to the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu648, Jul. 10, 1984).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)