Whether an administrative agency's wrong response to the possibility of construction can be seen as a justifiable reason under Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981).

If a land readjustment project did not use (construction) for its own purpose for a certain period from the time of acquisition of the land without a justifiable reason even though there was no problem in the construction of the building due to the completion of the land readjustment project, the above land shall have already become a non-business land of a corporation under Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981) and there was a wrong reply from an administrative agency as to whether it is possible to construct the building, and therefore, the land for non-business use shall not be deemed to have been changed

Article 112-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3757 of Dec. 24, 1984); Article 84-3(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Seoul Trust Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Hwang Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu471 delivered on May 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff was not able to use the above land for 1,130,000 won for non-business purposes or for 37 pieces of land except the Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) from April 15, 1980 to May 26, 197. According to the above facts-finding, the court below's decision that the above land was no longer possible for 1,130,000 won for non-business purposes to use the above land as new construction site for non-business purposes. The above land as planned land substitution within the land rearrangement project zone is the land category of the previous land and 9 parcels of land. The above land rearrangement project can be combined with several parcels of land category change even before the land substitution becomes final and conclusive, and it is not possible for the plaintiff to use the above land for non-business purposes for 1,50,000 won for non-business purposes for non-business purposes because it is not possible for the plaintiff to use the land for 201,000 pieces of land.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)