(a) Whether a site within the urban partition rearrangement project district prior to confirmation of a replotting disposition is subject to the imposition of urban planning tax; and

(b) The meaning of "date on which construction is possible because the business is completed in a unit divided by unit" under Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; and

(c) The meaning of "land, the use of which is prohibited by construction and use pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes" under subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; and

(d) In cases of (c), the occurrence of grounds for revoking the prohibition of use, and the requirements for imposing official land taxes, etc.;

A. According to Articles 235 through 237 of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, land located in a land readjustment project district shall be subject to imposition of urban planning tax without examining whether a land in the land readjustment project district has been publicly announced.

(b) For a land readjustment project, "date on which construction is possible as the project is completed in a unit of partition" in the main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act means the time when construction is possible as the project of suspending unit of partition is completed in fact even before a land readjustment project is publicly announced, unless there are special circumstances.

(c) “Land, the use of which is prohibited by construction and use pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes” provided for one of the reasons for exclusion from this public land under subparagraph 1(i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act includes land which resulted in a result of the total prohibition of its use as it is actually impossible for landowners to use the land even if they want to use the land sufficiently in accordance with the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes or the laws and regulations based on the land.

D. Since the designation of an apartment zone was announced and the development project implementer of an apartment zone was designated again, the above land results in the result that the land use by the landowners was practically prohibited by Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act, so it shall be deemed that the land excluded from the vacant land as stipulated in Article 78-3 (1) (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and then the above ground for prohibition of use was cancelled due to the cancellation of the project implementation period without the implementation of the above designated project, so it becomes possible for the landowner to use the land suitable for the purpose of designation of the apartment zone, even if the said prohibition was cancelled pursuant to subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, it shall be subject to taxation of the property tax, and it shall be subject to taxation of the defense tax.

(a) Article 235 and Article 237 of the Local Tax Act; Article 195 subparagraph 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 78-3 subparagraph 1 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act; Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 80Nu221 delivered on August 8, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu160 delivered on March 23, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 81Nu108 delivered on March 27, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu209 Delivered on January 20, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu387 delivered on February 10, 1987

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu242 delivered on December 23, 1981

The part of the judgment below regarding the imposition of property tax and defense tax shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

1. As to urban planning tax:

According to Articles 235 through 237 of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 2 of the Urban Planning Act, land located in a land readjustment project district shall be subject to the imposition of urban planning tax without examining whether a disposition of replotting has been publicly announced. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged.

2. For property tax and defense tax:

(a) As to the first ground for appeal:

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (C) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act "the date on which construction is possible after the project is completed in a unit of partition" refers to the time when construction is possible after the project of suspension of unit of partition is completed in fact even before a disposition of replotting is publicly announced in the case of a land readjustment project, unless there are special circumstances. In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the land of this case is the date on which construction is possible is just and the decision of the court below that the construction of the land of this case is the date of May 17, 1971 when the suspension project of unit of partition is completed in fact, and even if the 70 square meters out of the land of this case was incorporated into a school site and the new land substitution is made, it cannot be said that the remaining land subject to the property tax of this case was the land that cannot

The Supreme Court Decision pointing out the following is related to the land that does not seem to have a specific condition where construction is possible, and thus, it is not appropriate in this case. The argument is groundless.

B. We also examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 4.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the land of this case acquired by the plaintiff around September 7, 196 (the address 1 omitted) from Gangnam-gu, Seoul (the address 743 square meters), and the land planned to be 462.4 square meters pursuant to the land readjustment project implemented on January 8, 1968) was designated and announced as an apartment zone together with the surrounding land under Article 131 of the Construction Notice No. 131 of 1976, and thereafter, the land of this case was not used until September 16, 1980, and the land of this case was not designated and announced as an apartment zone under Article 33 of the Building Act, Article 15-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Act, and Article 15-2 of the Construction of Apartment Building Act and Article 15-2 of the Construction of Apartment Building Ordinance of the Local Tax Act (the above land was excluded from the area of the building site of this case which was constructed within the area of the building site of this case within 150-5 meters or more.

However, the phrase “land, the use of which is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of the Local Tax Act” under subparagraph 1 (1) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, as one of the reasons for the exclusion of the above public land, shall be deemed to include the cases where the use of the land was substantially prohibited due to the fact that the owner of the land failed to use the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the subordinate statute of the Act or the subordinate statute of the Act or the subordinate statute of the 196th anniversary of the designation of the above public land, and the remaining land was designated and announced as an apartment development district under Article 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Nu160, Mar. 23, 198; 81Nu108, Mar. 27, 198). This case’s land was designated and announced as an apartment development district under the provisions of Article 21 of the Housing Construction Promotion Act and Article 4571 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Construction Promotion Act.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the imposition of property tax and defense tax is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, and the appeal concerning the imposition disposition of urban planning tax is dismissed. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the plaintiff and the costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)