The meaning of "land on which a lawsuit is pending" under subparagraph 8 of Article 78-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of December 31, 1986) that is excluded from the vacant land.

Article 188 (1) 1 Item 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) excluded from the vacant land over which property tax is heavy pursuant to Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of the same day) and Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of the same day) mean only the land, the use of which is prohibited by the court.

Article 18 (1) 1 Item 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986); Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986); Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 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 82Nu32 delivered on April 27, 1982 delivered on October 12, 1976, 82Nu190 delivered on April 12, 1983

Plaintiff

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

Daegu High Court Decision 87Gu148 delivered on March 18, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Article 188 (1) 1 Item 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986); Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Apr. 12, 1983); and Article 78-3 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 452 of the Ministry of Home Affairs of the same day), "land on which a lawsuit is pending" means only the land, the use of which is prohibited by the court (see Supreme Court Decision 76Nu149, Oct. 12, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu32, Apr. 27, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Nu190, Apr. 12, 1983).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law such as theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the theory that the land of this case is “land inappropriate for construction or use” as referred to in Article 78-3 subparag. 10 of the above Rule, and thus, it should be excluded from the public place of land. However, it cannot be said that the court below did not deliberate and decide on this point for the first time in the appellate court.

For this reason, this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)