Where a land readjustment project has been land classified as a site or its original farmland, and a small debt is planted even at the time of taxation due to the land readjustment project;

1. Tax rates to be applied to the imposition of property tax;

2. Appropriateness of imposition disposition of urban planning tax on the relevant land;

1. If the land was originally farmland, and the land category of which was a site due to a land readjustment project, or the plaintiff continued to grow in the land from the taxation year prior to the taxation year of this case to the taxation year, and paid the farmland tax, the tax rate of 1/100, which is the tax rate for the farmland in light of Article 139 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, shall be applied in imposing the property tax on the land.

2. According to Article 235 of the Local Tax Act that was enforced at the time of this case taxation, urban planning tax shall be imposed on the owner of land, building as determined by the Presidential Decree in the land planning zone, and according to Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 104-6 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, land in the land readjustment project zone for which a replotting disposition was publicly announced shall be imposed as land subject to the assessment of urban planning tax, all of which were land such as paddy field, orchard, stock farm site, forest land, etc.

Article 235 of the Local Tax Act, Article 139 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 188 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 104-6 of the

Shin Young-deok

The Mayor of Incheon Metropolitan City;

1. The part of the disposition imposing property tax of 195,365 won, defense tax of 39,073 won against the plaintiff on September 11, 1983, which exceeds 65,121 won, defense tax of 13,024 won, shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's remaining claims and the defendant's claim seeking revocation of imposition of 130,243 won of urban planning tax on the same day is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are divided into two parts, one of them shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

The part of the disposition by the Defendant on September 11, 1983 that exceeds 195,365 won, defense tax amounting to 39,073 won, urban planning tax amounting to 130,243 won, property tax amounting to 57,885 won, defense tax amounting to 11,577 won, and urban planning tax amounting to 115,71 won shall be revoked.

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

(1) Determination as to the claim seeking revocation of property tax and the defense detailed and disposition.

According to the above 1-1 (Collection Resolution) of evidence Nos. 1-2, 2-1 of the same evidence Nos. 2, 3-1 of the same evidence Nos. 3, 4-1 of the same evidence Nos. 5-2, and 5-2 of the same evidence Nos. 1-2, the defendant cultivated small land No. 757 of the Nam-gu, Incheon for 1983 while holding 1-1, 723.3 of the above land No. 1-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Property Tax Law No. 100, 1-1, 2-1 of the same evidence No. 2, 3-1 of the same evidence No. 2, 3-1 of the same evidence No. 3 of the same evidence No. 4, 10-1, 1978, the plaintiff's tax rate of the property tax shall be 30-1,000 won for the reason that the above land becomes the land category of land 】 65-1/60-131,0-10-1 of the land price No.

Therefore, the part of the defendant's property tax and defense detailed and disposition exceeding the above recognition amount should be revoked as it is illegal.

2) Determination as to the claim seeking revocation of imposition disposition of urban planning tax.

In light of the above mentioned contents in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2, and 5-2 of the same evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3-1, and 5-2 of the same evidence Nos. 5-2, the land of this case was originally dry field, which became the land of this case, and the land category became the site after the replotting was determined by the compartmentalization and rearrangement project on July 1, 1978. The defendant, on September 11, 1983, determined 65,121, 667 won as the standard market value of each taxation price of the above land. The defendant, applying the tax rate of 2/100, determined 130,243 won and notified it to the plaintiff, and there is no counter evidence.

Article 235 of the Local Tax Act, effective at the time of this case taxation, provides that urban planning tax shall be imposed on the owner of land or building prescribed by the Presidential Decree located within an urban planning zone, and Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 104-6 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that land within a land readjustment project zone in which a replotting disposition has been publicly announced shall be imposed on both land such as electricity, paddy field, orchard, orchard, stock farm site, and forest land subject to imposition of urban planning tax.

If so, it is clear that the land in this case is a land subject to taxation under the above Article, and thus, the defendant's disposition imposing urban planning tax is legitimate.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking revocation of the imposition disposition of urban planning tax is dismissed without merit. The above claim seeking revocation of the property tax and defense detail and disposition is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. Two minutes of the lawsuit cost are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the Plaintiff as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Young-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim Yong-dam