[Judgment of the court below]

Head of Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City

June 24, 1982

1. It is revoked that the Defendant’s taxation exceeding KRW 6,489,00, and KRW 1,297,80, and KRW 389,340, and KRW 77,868, which was imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff as of September 16, 1981, exceeds KRW 389,340, and KRW 77,868.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant. The remainder of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Each taxation disposition by the Defendant against the Plaintiff as of September 16, 1981 is revoked, with the amount of 6,489,00 won for the second period of 1981, the amount of 259,560 won for urban planning tax, and the amount of 1,297,80 won for defense tax.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

(1) Determination on taxation of property tax and defense tax

As of September 16, 1981, the fact that the Defendant rendered the disposition of this taxation with the amount of KRW 6,489,00, KRW 00, KRW 1,297,800, KRW 297,000, which was calculated by applying the heavy taxation rate to the Plaintiff as the date of commencing the payment period of the property tax for land portion in the year 1981 on the land owned by the Plaintiff, as of the date of the payment period of the property tax for land portion in the year 1981, the household building constructed on the ground does not fall under Article 142 (1) 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the land portion in the second period of the year 1981, which was calculated by applying the heavy taxation rate to the Plaintiff. There is no dispute between the parties.

. On the other hand, the plaintiff was assigned to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office for Construction Work for 10 YYY 2, 10 YY 10 YY 6 YY 6 YY 10 YY 6 YY 6 YY 10 YY 6 YY 10 YY 6 YY 6 YY 10 YY 10 YY 12 YY 13 YYY 10 YYY 9 YYY 10 YYY 10 YYY 10 YYY 10 YYY 9 YYYY 10 YYY 10 YYYY 6 YYYY 14 YYYY 10 YYYY 10 YYYYY 10 YYYY 10 YYYYY 1974 YYYY 197 YY

However, according to Article 142 (1) 16, Article 78-3, and 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act of 198 (hereinafter the same shall apply), the land which a landowner continues to use for specific purpose after obtaining permission from an administrative agency for more than 1 year shall be excluded from the vacant land subject to heavy tax rate. The heavy taxation provisions on public land shall be limited to the case where the landowner leaves it sufficiently according to its original purpose, and it shall be deemed to be subject to heavy property tax rate of 10 and 14 of the Local Tax Act, so long as the rent method of the land is recognized as above, it is clear that the land was planned to be constructed at least 10 of the above 7th anniversary of the above 10th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 8th 7th 8th 7th 7th 8th 7th 8th 7th 8th 7th 8th 7th 7th 8th 7th 8th 7th 7th 7th 7th g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g.

(2) Determination on taxation of urban planning tax

The fact that the defendant imposed 259,560 won as urban planning tax on the land of this case on the plaintiff as of September 16, 1981 does not conflict between the parties.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the taxation of urban planning tax on this case is illegal, since the office of site work is established on the land of this case and this constitutes a ground settlement, so the land or building located within the whole area or part of the urban planning district publicly notified to cover the expenses for the urban planning project is subject to taxation. The land is the land subject to taxation of the property tax, which refers to all the land (Article 235 (1) of the Local Tax Act and Article 195 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land and Housing Act, excluding the rice paddy field, paddy field, orchard, orchard, stock farm site, and woodland, and forest land within the land subject to taxation of the property tax, for which a replotting disposition is publicly announced under the Land and Housing Readjustment Project Act, and since the land in this case was already publicly notified as the land in the land subject to a land readjustment disposition, for which a replotting disposition has already been publicly announced on April 1, 1978, it constitutes an object of urban planning tax. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this point is without merit.

In addition, the standard market price of this land is KRW 129,780,000, which is recognized by paragraph (1), and it is obvious in calculating that the tax amount calculated by multiplying the prescribed tax rate (2/1,00) is KRW 259,560,00.

(3) If so, the part of the Defendant’s property tax assessment amounting to KRW 6,489,00, and KRW 1,297,800, which exceeds KRW 389,340, and KRW 77,868, among the defense tax assessment amounting to KRW 1,29,340, and KRW 77,868, should be revoked illegally. However, the remainder of the tax and KRW 259,560 are justifiable. Thus, the Plaintiff’s principal claim is justified only within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims is dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89, and Article 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

July 15, 1982

Judges Park Jong-young (Presiding Judge)