[1] The meaning of "when the acquisition of land under Article 23 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act is actually completed on a sectional unit"

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the above / [1] "when the business was actually completed in a unit of partition" was erroneous

[1] For the purpose of Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act, the term “when the project is actually completed by a sectional unit” refers to the point at which the project is actually completed and the usage of the pertinent land according to the purpose of the land, such as construction, etc. is available, and in addition to the completion of the land suspension work, it is sufficient if the water supply and drainage and drainage work, such as road works and water supply and drainage system, is completed to the extent that it is good even if the use according to the purpose of the land is forced, it shall not be deemed that the project is actually completed

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the taxation disposition in this case was unlawful on the ground that, in determining the "when the project is actually completed by a unit of partition" under Article 23 subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, the point that it was impossible to use the land for the purpose of the land because the land continuously emitted from the ground that the land was continuously stored even after the formation and rearrangement project was completed, and that it was necessary to determine the point at which it was possible to use the land for the purpose of the land after hearing, but without any grounds, the date the project was actually completed without the public announcement date is deemed as the date the project was completed.

[1] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act / [2] Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu14714 delivered on January 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 852), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1964 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1363), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu8160 delivered on May 24, 1994 (the same purport), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10910 delivered on March 8, 1996 (the same purport), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu10910 delivered on March 8, 1996 (the same purport) (the same purport)

Plaintiff

Head of Pyeongtaek Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu31813 delivered on November 10, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the rearrangement project by the unit of subdivision for the land of this case, incorporated into the land of this case within the land rearrangement project district of Songtan on March 31, 1978, was actually completed on December 15, 198 and the land of this case was publicly announced on December 30, 198, and determined that the land of this case does not constitute idle land for the period from December 15, 198 to December 15, 1990, which was actually completed in the unit of the said land rearrangement project of this case.

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14472 of Dec. 31, 1994) provide that in case where a project is incorporated into a land readjustment project district under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act after the acquisition of land, the period from the date the project district is designated to the date the project is actually completed for the period from the date the project is actually completed for the period from the date the project is completed for the period of one to three years from the date the unit is actually completed for the land, shall be deemed the acquisition date of the land, and the period of one to three years shall not be deemed the idle land, respectively. The term “when the project is actually completed by the division unit” under the above Enforcement Decree refers to the point of time the use of the land, such as the construction, etc. after the completion of the construction work, and it is sufficient to compel the use of the land other than the completion of the construction work, and further, the fact of completion of the project is notified to the interested parties.

According to the records, it can be known that it was completed on October 31, 1984 at the time of the completion of the suspension work for the land within the relevant compartmentalization and rearrangement district, and barring any special circumstance, the rearrangement and rearrangement project of this case was actually completed at the latest at the time of the completion of the construction work for the land within the relevant rearrangement and rearrangement district. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that it was impossible to use the land of this case for the purpose of the use of the land of this case even after the completion of the suspension work due to the fact that the cost of the rearrangement and rearrangement project of this case had been continuously surched after the completion of the rearrangement and rearrangement project of this case. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the above legal principles or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)