Requirements for land excluded from public suspension pursuant to Article 78-3 (14) 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)

Article 78-3 subparag. 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986) stipulates that the pertinent land itself is subject to the permission of an administrative agency for specific use and the land to be excluded from the public place where it is intended to be continuously used for the pertinent purpose. As such, a person who has obtained a water business license is only used for the relevant business, and land for which no permission, etc. has been obtained from an administrative agency for specific use cannot be deemed as land to be excluded from the public place.

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986), Article 78-3 (14) 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 87Nu860 Delivered on November 24, 1987

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Metropolitan City/Dong-gu

Daegu High Court Decision 88Gu95 delivered on October 12, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. According to each purport of Articles 237 and 236 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986), since there is no difference in the tax base or tax rate depending on whether the land subject to imposition of urban planning tax is public land or not, in the imposition of urban planning tax, there is no difference in the tax base or tax rate, the court below is justified in the decision of the court below on the same purport, and it is not justified in the decision of the court below on the ground of the other opinion.

2. In order to constitute a land to be excluded from the public land stipulated in subparagraph 4 (1) of Article 78-3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986), a person who uses the land is required to be a person who has obtained a license or a mid-term license for automobile transport business under the provisions of the Automobile Transport Business Act and the Mid-Term Management Act. Therefore, the court below's decision that the non-party company under the explanation that rents and uses the land of this case from the plaintiff can not be included in the public land because there is no evidence of the same license as the above provision. In addition, there is no misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out, and since Article 78-3 subparagraph 14 of the above Rule requires that the land itself is excluded from the public land to be used for the specific purpose of use of the administrative agency's specific purpose and it is not clear that there is no evidence to exclude the non-party from the above land from the public land (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu687Nu60, Nov. 24, 19, 19, 1987).

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)