An Order of Condolence;

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

December 24, 1981

The part of the property tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff as of September 16, 1980, which exceeds 23,910 won, defense tax amounting to 23,910 won, defense tax amounting to 5,782 won, and urban planning tax amounting to 1,195,50 won, defense tax amounting to 23,910 won, defense tax amounting to 5,782 won, and urban planning tax amounting to 47,820 won shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,195,50,500, defense tax amounting to KRW 239,100, urban planning tax amounting to KRW 47,820, which was imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff as of September 16, 1980, shall be revoked. Litigation costs shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. As of September 16, 1980, the defendant was assigned to the plaintiff as of 84-1 return of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area 84-1 return, 717-1 return of the land owned by the defendant as of 84-1 return of the land, and was assigned to the 574 return block in the sericultural land readjustment project zone, and the designation of land scheduled for substitution as of 84-1,80, 80, 84-16, 80, 80, 84-17, 80, 80-7 and 84-18, 112.3 (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case") and was actually constructed on May 6, 1975, and it was actually possible to do so, Article 18-14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Article 18-2 of the Local Tax Act) and Article 18-18-2 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the property tax for the land of this case, Article 1818-15

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the imposition disposition of the property tax on the land of this case is unlawful and unreasonable as the land was the public land. Thus, first, it is examined whether the imposition disposition of the property tax and the defense tax accordingly is legitimate or not.

Without dispute over each establishment, Gap evidence 1-1, 2 (Determination Notice), Gap evidence 2-1, 2 (Determination Notice), Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 8, 9 (Confirmation Request and its reply), Gap evidence 10-1 to 4 (each photograph), and the whole purport of the pleadings by the witness Kim Jong-ok's testimony, the land was assigned to the non-party 1 to the non-party 6-1, 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 5-1, 6-10, 9-10-1, 9-2, and was not assigned to the non-party 1 to the non-party 6-1, 1975-2, but was assigned to the non-party 1, 60-1,000-1,000-1,000-7,000-7.

However, the so-called "public land" shall be subject to high tax rates under Article 188, Paragraph 1 (3) of the Local Tax Act, Paragraph 1 (6) of the same Article, Paragraph 1 (3) of the same Article of the Enforcement Decree, and Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the same Enforcement Decree, and Article 78-3 and 3 of the same Enforcement Rule provide that the classification and limit of subject of taxation shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. According to this, the land de facto planting crops (including feed crops) seedlings, ornamental trees, etc. before January 14, 1974, which is proved by the confirmation of the farmland tax ledger or the farmland tax ledger or the head of Eup/Myeon/Dong, and in particular, since the land in the land in the land readjustment project zone continues to cultivate before the date of commencing the business, it shall be excluded from the so-called "public land" as farmland, etc., and the plaintiff's land is still illegal after the construction of the above land due to the construction site after the construction work.

However, on the other hand, although the land category was converted into the land category as it was originally incorporated within the above land readjustment project execution zone, the land category was changed, and the land category was still insufficient as it can be seen as the above recognition. Since the plaintiff continued to cultivate it as dry field, it should be taxed according to the actual land category (Article 139 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act). Thus, at least the land subject to the tax rate under Article 188 (1) 1 (4) of the Local Tax Act (Article 139 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act) is a land subject to the tax rate

Furthermore, comprehensively taking account of each of the records in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 (Taxation ledger and details of taxation) with respect to its tax amount, it can be recognized that the standard market value at the time of the disposition of this case on the 353 square meters of the land at the time of the disposition of this case constitutes gold 23,910,000. Therefore, the property tax calculated by applying the prescribed tax rate (1/100) is 23,910 won (23,910,000 x 1/1,000) and it is clear that the defense tax calculated by applying the prescribed tax rate (20/100) under Article 4 subparag. 12 of the Defense Tax Act is 5,782 won.

3. The following shall be considered as to whether a disposition imposing urban planning tax is lawful.

On the other hand, according to the provisions of Article 235 (1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 195 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, land in a land readjustment project district shall be subject to the imposition of urban planning tax, which shall be a public notice of the relevant land substitution disposition. Thus, the disposal portion imposing urban planning tax on the land in this case for which no public notice of land substitution disposition has been given cannot be illegal.

4. Thus, the portion exceeding 23,910 won of the property tax and the amount exceeding 5,782 won of the defense tax, among the disposition of this case, and the imposition portion of urban planning tax should be revoked illegally. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted only within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder shall be dismissed as it is reasonable, and the burden of litigation costs shall be borne by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and the proviso of Article 89 and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act, respectively.

January 21, 1982

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)