[1] Requirements for "pre-entry, answer, and orchard" as land subject to separate taxation of aggregate land tax under the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[2] Whether Article 194-17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act which provides the principle of imposition of current status violates the principle of no taxation without law (negative)

[1] A field, answer, or orchard subject to separate taxation is required to be the land which is used as a place for cultivating crops or growing perennial plants and the site for the attached facilities connected thereto at least, without relation to the land category recorded on the public register.

[2] Article 194-17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the principle of imposition of current status as of the tax base date, is a property with a profit-free nature, which recognizes the capacity to pay taxes on the land in possession and is divided into the current status or current status of the land as of the tax base date each year during the possession of the relevant land. Thus, the provision of Article 194-17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides the principle of imposition of current status

[1] Article 5 of the Cadastral Act, Article 6 subparags. 1, 2, and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act, Article 234-15(2)3 and (4), and Article 234-16(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 194-15(1)2(a), and Article 194-17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act / [2] Articles 38 and 59 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 194-17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu2873 delivered on September 12, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3180) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 82Nu221 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983, 223) 94Nu86 delivered on March 17, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1767)

Plaintiff

The head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu34817 delivered on January 9, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 234-15 (2) 3 and (4) and Article 234-16 (3) of the Local Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), "value of rice paddy, field and orchard as prescribed by Presidential Decree" is the object of separate taxation by separating them from the aggregate tax base of aggregate land tax, and accordingly, Article 194-15 (1) 2 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") provides that "land of the same kind, field, and orchard (hereinafter referred to as "farmland" in this Article) shall be classified into the current status of land of the Gu, Si, Gun and its neighboring area for 6 months or longer as of the tax base date for taxation, and the land category and land of the same Article shall not be classified into the current status of land actually used for the purpose of farming and fishing village and its neighboring area for 19 months or more as of the date of taxation, and the land category and land of the same attached facilities shall not be classified into the current status of the land within the urban planning area.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land category of this case was all, but is farmland not actually cultivated by the plaintiff as of June 1, 1996, which is the tax base date, and held that the disposition of this case which is not subject to separate taxation according to the actual status of the land of this case is lawful. In light of the above legal principles, this decision of the court below is justified and there is no error of law by the legal person like the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by the legal person like the theory of lawsuit, and the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7857 delivered on September 26, 1995, which cited the theory of lawsuit, does not interfere with this decision. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)