The meaning of "when a land readjustment project is actually completed by unit of partition" under Article 23 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Land Excess Profit Tax Act.

In light of the fact that notification inside an administrative agency is merely a post-inspection procedure to confirm the completion of construction for administrative convenience, and it is merely a procedure to publicly announce the completion of construction work under Article 61 (1) of the Land Readjustment Projects Act.Public inspection is merely a procedure to publicly announce the completion of construction work ex post, and it is not impossible to confirm the actual completion of construction work, and it is possible for landowners to find out the current status of land whether the construction work has been actually completed, such as suspension, construction of roads, drainage facilities, etc., and whether the land owner can find it. In light of Article 23 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of Land Excess Profit Tax (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13198 of Dec. 31, 190) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13198 of Dec. 31, 190), the term "when the land readjustment project is actually completed" means the point at which the land can be used for the purpose of the land, such as construction, etc.

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13198 of Dec. 31, 190)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Head of Seocho Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu1055 delivered on November 11, 1992

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on February 18, 1982, the previous land owned by the plaintiff was incorporated into the land readjustment project zone related to the land rearrangement project implemented by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 18, 1982 and received the land substitution. On December 22, 1988, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City notified the head of Seocho-gu Office, the permitting authority, of the completion of construction work, such as suspension of land, water supply and drainage facilities, road construction, etc. on August 30, 1987. However, the land owner was not notified of the completion of construction by public inspection, etc., and the completion of construction was announced en bloc on October 17, 198, which was after the completion of construction in the whole project district, the court below determined that the land in this case was illegal on the premise that the implementer was aware of the completion of construction work by public inspection and public announcement under the Land Readjustment Project Act, and that the land in this case was subject to the imposition of the remaining land at issue.

2. According to Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where land is acquired and a project is converted into a land readjustment project district under the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act, the period from the date of designation of the project execution district to two years after the actual completion of the project by dividing unit shall not be deemed idle land. Thus, notification inside the administrative agency is merely a follow-up procedure to confirm the completion of construction for administrative convenience, and a public announcement of construction completion under Article 61(1) of the Land Rearrangement and Rearrangement Projects Act is merely a procedure to publicly announce the completion of construction after public inspection, and it is not impossible to confirm the completion of construction in fact because there is no notification or public announcement. In light of the fact that the landowner is aware of the current status of the land, the "when a land readjustment project is actually completed by dividing unit" means the point at which the construction is completed and it is possible to use the land for the purpose of the land in question, such as construction works and drainage facilities.

3. If so, the date of actual completion by a land readjustment project for the land of this case shall be deemed to be August 30, 1987, which appears to be possible to be constructed after completion of construction, such as suspension, water supply and drainage facilities, road construction, etc. In addition, the date of completion of the scheduled period of construction of this case, as well as the date of commencement of the scheduled period of construction of this case, shall be after the lapse of the two-year grace period from the date of completion of the above scheduled period of construction of this case, and the disposition of this case, which deemed the land of this case as falling under idle land during the scheduled period of construction of this case, is legitimate. The court below, contrary to this opinion, has erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 23 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)