Article 66(1) of the Road Act provides “The scope of “any person who remarkably benefiting”

The "person who has remarkably been benefited from road works" as stipulated in Article 66 (1) of the Road Act includes not only the owner at the time of the public announcement of the execution of the construction but also the landowner at the time of the imposition of the beneficiary charges.

Article 66 (1) of the Road Act

Attorney Lee Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Han-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu707 delivered on February 28, 1978

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

Article 66 (1) of the Road Act provides that "any person who obtains a significant benefit from road construction" includes not only the owner at the time of the public announcement of construction work but also the owner at the time of the imposition of the share of the share of the beneficiary. Therefore, the provision that "if a landowner at the time of public announcement moves to a landowner at the time of public announcement, he shall succeed to the landowner at the time of the imposition of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share of the share.

2. As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the records, the court below held that the plaintiff is a special corporation established under the Korea Teachers' Mutual Aid Association Act and is exempt from corporate tax, business tax, and acquisition tax, etc. under Articles 4 (1) 27 and 5 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, but it is clearly found that the plaintiff acquired the above land and the above land was exempted from corporate tax, business tax, and acquisition tax, etc., under Article 9 of the same Act and Article 184 (1) of the Local Tax Act, only the property directly used for its unique duties among the property owned by the plaintiff shall be exempted from property taxes, and the property taxes may not be exempted from property taxes, and Article 10 of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 107 of the Local Tax Act provides that even if the plaintiff acquired the land to use for its unique duties within 6 months from the date of its acquisition, if it is not directly used for its own business, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above imposition of taxes by the defendant on the land under Article 11 of the above Ordinance.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)