The case holding that the land exceeding 200 square meters due to increased land substitution cannot be deemed as public land due to the lapse of one year and six months from the date when land substitution is determined to the date when tax payment period commences.

If the land (A) and (B) are not adjacent land owned by the same person, it shall not be determined by adding up the area of the above two parcels of land, and if the above (A) land was originally substituted in 200 square meters, but later in 200.18, it shall not be deemed as a public land due to the lapse of one year and six months from the date of acquisition of the property tax payment period as of January 18, 1982.

Article 188 of the Local Tax Act, Article 142 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Head of Seoul Gangnam-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu517 delivered on December 30, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the above 200 square meters of the above 2-year land was no longer owned by the plaintiff on September 11, 1972, and the plaintiff was registered in the name of the plaintiff on December 18, 1982, and the above 1-year land was no longer owned by the plaintiff on April 10, 1982, and the above 1-year land was no more than 228.40 square meters of the above 1-year land and the above 1-year land was no longer owned by the plaintiff on June 10, 1979, and the above 1-year land was no more than 20 square meters of the above 1-year land and the above 1-year land was no more than 10 square meters of the above 1-year land and no more than 2-year land was purchased by the plaintiff on June 10, 197.

In light of the records, the court below's examination of the evidence preparation, fact-finding and its determination process is just and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, and all arguments are groundless

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)