Whether land which was actually difficult to be constructed due to ground subsidence due to subway construction constitutes land prohibited from being used due to its construction and use (negative)

Land which was difficult to be actually constructed due to the concerns about damage to earth and sand facilities installed in the neighboring land during the subway construction period and the technical problems that occur due to underground subsidence, etc. shall not be deemed as the land location or form prescribed in subparagraph 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, apart from the fact that it falls under the land inappropriate for construction or use in the technology or economy, it shall not be deemed as the land the construction or use of which is prohibited under the provisions of the laws and regulations prescribed in subparagraph 1 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree

Subparagraph 1 of Article 78-3 and subparagraph 10 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu274 delivered on January 24, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff was in fact constructed since May 1980 that the construction of the above site was likely to damage soil facilities installed in the above site, and the technical problems such as ground subsidence and ground subsidence caused by the damage risk of the soil facilities installed in the above site, ground subsidence, and the passage of construction vehicles, etc., because the plaintiff acquired large 326:3 Hobbebbes, Gangnam-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted), which is the land in this case, from November 29, 1978 to November 30, 1971, and the area adjacent to the land owned by the plaintiff was in progress by the Gangnam-gu and the construction work was completed around May 1980, the court below was just in light of the records, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the incomplete deliberation or the incomplete deliberation as to the evidence preparation process conducted to recognize the above facts.

As determined by the court below, if it was difficult to construct the land of this case in fact due to concerns about damage to earth and sand facilities installed in the neighboring area during the period of the original subway construction and technical problems that occur due to underground subsidence, etc., the land of this case shall not be deemed as the land location or form prescribed in Article 78-3 subparag. 10 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and it shall not be deemed as the land the construction or use of which is prohibited under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes of Article 78-3 subparag. 1 of the same Rule, regardless of the fact that the land of this case falls under the land inappropriate for construction or use in technology or economy, and it shall not be deemed as the land the construction or use of which is prohibited under the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes of Article 78-3 subparag. 1 of the same Rule. 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and there is no error of law

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 Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)