(a) Measures for limitations on construction following the designation of an apartment district and reasons for exclusion from the vacant lots provided for in subparagraphs 1 (i) and 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;

(b) Text of imposition of urban planning tax on the site in a land readjustment project district and public announcement of replotting disposition;

A. As a result of incorporation into an apartment zone, a building cannot be constructed only with the land owned by the Plaintiff (715.5 square meters), and even if the Plaintiff was separately designated as an apartment project implementer and the Plaintiff was subject to restrictions or prohibitions on construction on the above land, this is merely a restriction or a series of measures to construct buildings meeting the purpose of designation by designating the above land as an apartment zone. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above land falls under the grounds for exclusion from the vacant land stipulated in subparagraphs 1 (i) and 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act.

B. A site located in a land readjustment project zone shall be subject to urban planning tax without examining whether a land substitution disposition has been publicly announced.

(a) Subparagraph 1 (i) and 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act; Article 235 (1) of the Local Tax Act; Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act;

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu243 delivered on December 23, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above land was not owned by the plaintiff 1, 452 and 746 square meters after the lapse of 7 years from the date of construction of the above land under the provision of 1, 97 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act No. 1, 1968 (No. 3 omitted) and 367 square meters (Na), which were the land of this case due to the land readjustment project implemented as of November 18, 1968 (No. 1, 4, 197). Since the above land was owned by the non-party 1, 1, 2, 3, 196, 1, 197, 1, 197, 2, 3, 196, 4, 197, 1, 3, 5, 1, 197, 5, 1, 197, 5, 6, 1, 197, 2, 3, 197.

2. According to Articles 235 through 237 of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, the land located in the land readjustment project zone shall be subject to the imposition of urban planning tax without examining whether the land in the land readjustment project zone has been publicly announced, and the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles

3. 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)