The meaning of "permission, etc. from an administrative agency" under Article 78-3 subparagraph 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 414 of May 12, 1984).

The permission, etc. of administrative agencies referred to in Article 78-3 subparagraph 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 414, May 12, 1984) refers to the permission, etc. of the administrative agencies concerning the specific use of the relevant land, not to refer to the permission, etc. of the competent agency concerning any business operated by the land owner

Article 142(1)16(h) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Jun. 4, 1984), Article 78-3 subparag. 14 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 414 of May 12, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu29 Delivered on April 24, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Yongsan-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu8 delivered on November 9, 1984

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 142 (1) 1 Item 6 (h) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Jun. 4, 1984) stipulates that the land shall be excluded from the vacant land as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Accordingly, Article 78-3 subparagraph 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 414 of May 12, 1984) stipulates that the land owner shall use the land for specific purpose after obtaining permission, approval, designation, decision, etc. from an administrative agency to use it for specific purpose for not less than one year.

It is clear that the permission, etc. of the administrative agency here refers to the permission, etc. of the administrative agency concerning the specific use of the pertinent land, and it does not refer to the permission, etc. of the competent agency in any business itself operated by the landowner to be used for specific purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Nu29, Apr. 24,

2. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below, on the premise that the plaintiff's business of measurement and certification on the land is registered with the competent Yongsan-gu Office in accordance with Article 15 of the Weights Act, on the premise that the plaintiff's business is registered on the land, it is determined that the above rules' registration of measurement and certification business falls under the category of permission, etc. here, and such interpretation does not coincide with the purport of the above provisions of the Enforcement Rule.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is unlawful, which concluded that the land without any fixtures was excluded from the vacant land by misunderstanding the legal principles as to Article 78-3 subparag. 14 of the above Enforcement Rule, and the theory of lawsuit cited in this point is justified and therefore the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)