Whether construction is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act because it is substantially prohibited from construction in accordance with the guidelines for urban maintenance and improvement of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor's land.

If it is practically impossible for the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City to construct a site of less than 1,00 square meters or a site of less than 500 square meters in his/her own land as a result of the de facto prohibition of construction permission in accordance with the guidelines for the maintenance and improvement of women's roads, the above land shall be deemed to fall under the case where the use according to the construction and its purpose is prohibited pursuant to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes prescribed in Article 78-3 (1) 1 (i) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and the land for which 1 year and 6 months have not elapsed since the cancellation of the measures for construction and use prohibition pursuant to the same provision shall not be deemed to be the public land subject to taxation

Subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu208 Decided March 23, 1982

Plaintiff

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu

In the imposition of property tax of KRW 9,100,00 on the second term portion of September 16, 1981 against the plaintiff and of KRW 1,820,00 on the same defense tax, the part exceeding KRW 1,820,000 on the property tax of KRW 1,820,00 on the part of the defendant as of September 16, 1981 and KRW 364,00 on the defense tax shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

. The defendant purchased the above 19,10,00 won for 1981 and 1,820,00 won for 1981 and 200 won for 19,00,000 won for 20,000 won for 17,000,000 won for 17,000,000 won for 7,000,000 won for 17,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00

From March 18, 1976, the Plaintiff was unable to construct the land of this case by being subject to the restriction on construction permission for a site of less than 500 square meters under the rearrangement plan. Since the above restriction on construction was cancelled on May 14, 1980, the Plaintiff asserted that the disposition of the property tax of this case was unlawful since it was based on the premise that the land of this case was publicly announced as of September 16, 1981 after the lapse of one year and six months from May 15, 1980, which was the day following the cancellation of the above restriction on construction under subparagraph 1 (i) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, at least 0 percent of the size of the building site is 6 percent of the size of the previous building site and the size of the building site is 10 percent or less of the size of the building site, the size of the building site is 4.6 percent or more of the size of the building site as of March 18, 1976 and the size of the building site is 4.4 percent or more of the size of the previous building site is 5 percent or less of the size of the building site, the size of the building site is 10 percent or less of the size of the building site and the size of the building site is 5 percent or less of the size of the building site is 10,000 or less of the size of the building site. The size of the building site is 5 percent more or less of the size of the building site and the size of the building site is 5 percent or more of the size of the previous building site and the size of the building plan is 9 percent or more of the size of the building site is 5 percent more of the size of the building site.

However, according to the provisions of Article 18 (1) and (3) of the Local Tax Act, the classification and limit of property tax, such as vacant land, shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Among property tax, Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that land subject to taxation means land within an area prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, land for factory, school site, and miscellaneous land except those enumerated below the following among those which are not actually used, and they are listed in (a) through (h) above, and Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "other land prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs" shall not be deemed to be falling under one of the following 7 months after the elapse of 0 months, and it shall not be deemed to be more than 10 years after the expiration of 142 (1) 6 (h) of the same Act and shall not be deemed to be more than 10 years after the expiration of 140-year construction permit and its use shall be deemed to be more effective:

Therefore, the general tax rate of local taxes should apply to the land of this case. Accordingly, since the tax amount is KRW 1,820,000 for property tax and KRW 364,00 for defense tax is not a dispute between the parties, the part of the tax disposition of this case which exceeded each of the above parts of the tax disposition of this case is illegal, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who lost it.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-sung