Whether land used as an exclusive parking lot for cleaning vehicles belonging to the administrative agency is excluded from the public place (affirmative)

The land portion used as an exclusive parking lot for cleaning vehicles under a contract with an administrative agency shall be excluded from the land which a landowner under subparagraph 14 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act continues to use for the specific purpose with the approval of the administrative agency for the specific purpose and falls under the land continuously used for the specific purpose.

Article 142 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of the Gu of Busan Metropolitan City;

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu130 delivered on January 16, 1985

Of the judgment below, the part on the imposition of property tax and defense tax in 1983 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the remaining 753.35 square meters, excluding the area in conflict with the planning 374.85 square meters, 7 times from the Busan City/Do ( Address omitted), which the plaintiff acquired from the Busan City bank from 1978.4.1, 139.4.4, 139.4 square meters from the Busan City/Do, 1978.35 square meters, the court below determined that the defendant's imposition of the property tax and defense tax of this case on the land of this case by applying the heavy taxation rate from 1980 to 14.3 square meters from the date of acquisition to 198.3 square meters from the date of 198.3 square meters from the date of 198.3 square meters from the date of 198.3 square meters from the date of 198.3 square meters from the date of 19.3 square meters from the date of 198.3 square meters from the date of acquisition to 19.3 square meters from the date of this case.

(2) The decision of the court below that the use relation of the land owned by the plaintiff constitutes the land to be excluded from the public parking lots for cleaning vehicles under the above contract as long as the court below decided and consistent with the above contract, it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles such as theory of lawsuit. However, according to the statement of evidence Nos. 1-1 and 3-3 of the same evidence cited by the court below, the second vehicle storage contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the period of Dec. 31, 1983 is limited to 20 square meters of the land of this case, and it can be seen that the above 200 square meters (61 square meters) out of 35 square meters of 753.35 square meters of the land of this case is excluded from the property tax of this case and the second vehicle storage contract for the period of Dec. 31, 1983, which affected the conclusion of the decision of the court below that the land of this case should be excluded from the property tax of this case as of this case.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the property tax and the detailed and disposition of defense in 1983 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The defendant's remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed. The costs of appeal to the part dismissed are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)