Whether or not the land and its ground are owned by the same person in heavy taxation on the land for high-class recreation center;

In imposing heavy taxation on a land used for a high-class recreation center, it is not subject to heavy taxation on the condition that the land and the ground buildings belong to the same person, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the building used for a high-class recreation center is not owned by the landowner, but not subject to heavy taxation.

Article 188(1) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3488, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 142(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Articles 78-4(1) and 78-4(2) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Attorney Park Hun-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of a school juristic person

Head of the North Korean Office in Daegu Special Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu69 delivered on February 21, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 18 (1) 1 (ii) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3488, Dec. 31, 1981) imposes property tax on land for high-class recreation centers pursuant to Article 188 (1) 1 (ii) of the former Local Tax Act. Article 142 (1) 2 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 78-4 (1) 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that Kaba (Obatype amusement restaurant) shall be a building for high-class recreation centers, and the land annexed to a building for which part of a high-class recreation center is installed shall be the land belonging to the ratio of the total floor area to the building for high-class recreation centers to the total floor area of the building attached to the building. Thus, the land owned by the plaintiff at high-class recreation centers and the non-party 3 among the buildings owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 among the buildings owned by the plaintiff at high-class recreation centers shall be deemed to fall under Article 28 (1).

In the same purport, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 188 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act, and the contents of the decision in the Supreme Court Decision 85Nu604 Decided February 11, 1986 are that the owner of a building used for a high-class recreation center and the owner of the land attached thereto are subject to heavy taxation under the Local Tax Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the judgment below is contrary to the above decision, and it is merely an independent opinion of misunderstanding the contents

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)