The case holding that the application for a construction permit under the proviso of Article 23 subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192) shall be included in the application for a construction permit under the proviso

The case holding that the application for a construction permit under the proviso of Article 23 subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192) shall be included in the application for a construction permit under the proviso of

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act; Article 23 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13655 of May 30, 192)

[Judgment of the court below]

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu19745 delivered on February 26, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court: (a) acquired the instant land on July 19, 1984, and owned it on the current site as of December 31, 1990; (b) determined that the instant land was an application for a construction permit again by the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 4440, May 6, 190 to 12.31; (c) the Plaintiff applied for a construction permit under Article 97 of the former Building Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1365, May 31, 1991) to the head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Ordinance No. 1966, supra; (d) the Plaintiff applied for a new construction permit under Article 97 of the former Enforcement Decree No. 1360, May 30, 1992; and (e) the Plaintiff applied for a new construction permit for more than 660 square meters of total floor area, or more than 5,000 square meters of general business facilities.

2. Article 8 (3) of the Act provides that the land falling under idle land, etc. due to the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes concerning the prohibition of use due to the acquisition of land, the collapse of a building on the ground, or other inevitable reasons as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be considered idle land, etc., notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1). Article 8 (3) of the Act provides that “In case of the acquisition of land (limited to the land on which no building is settled) for the purpose of constructing a new building under subparagraph 3, “the Decree” shall not be considered as idle land for one year from the date of acquisition: Provided, That in case of land the construction of which cannot be permitted, permitted, licensed, or applied for construction permission due to the restriction of construction permission under the provisions of Article 44 of the Building Act, but the construction permission is restricted by administrative guidance for the adjustment of supply and demand of construction materials, it shall not be considered as idle land for the limited period of one year after its acquisition, and Article 8 (3) of the Act provides that “In case of land the application for construction permission under Article 303 of the former Building Act and the Enforcement Decree No. 4.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)