Whether restrictions on construction under Article 285 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice and whether they fall under subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (affirmative)

If the whole land in this case is changed from the aesthetic district on December 31, 1973 to the 1st aesthetic district, and is designated as the business district on April 22, 1976, and again, the new construction and extension of a building has been restricted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Public Notice No. 285 on June 30, 1978, pursuant to Article 28-3 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, it shall be deemed that the land is prohibited from being used in accordance with the construction and use under Article 78-3 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu417 delivered on February 24, 1981, 80Nu602 Delivered on February 24, 1981, 80Nu602 Delivered on February 24, 1981, 80Nu333 Delivered on March 10, 1981

Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office Kim Jong-ju, and Regularity

Seoul High Court Decision 80Gu355 delivered on February 3, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, 628 large 351 square meters of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is the land owned by the plaintiff without a ground settlement. Since the plaintiff acquired ownership on October 2, 1974, it is the land where this land is located, it is designated as an aesthetic district under the urban planning of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which changed its designation as Class 1 aesthetic district under No. 519 of Construction Notice No. 519 of Dec. 31, 1973, and it is regulated on the scale of above ground. Further, it is designated as a business district in which the minimum size of the building site is 500 square meters under subparagraph 88 of the Seoul Metropolitan City Notice No. 88 of Apr. 22, 1976, and it cannot be said that the above restriction of the use of the land was prohibited under the Local Tax Act since it did not constitute a temporary restriction of the use of the land under Article 97 of the Local Tax Act for which the above restriction of the use of the land was prohibited under the above provision of Article 197 of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)