Land excluded from the public land stipulated in Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of December 31, 1981)

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1981, Dec. 31, 1981) is a land in which no land, factory site, school site, and miscellaneous land do not actually be used within an area prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and thus, even if the land meets the requirements prescribed in Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the same Enforcement Decree, it shall not be regarded as a public land where the land meets the requirements prescribed in Article 142 (1) 1 (a) through (h) of the same Enforcement Decree, since it shall not be regarded as a public land where the land falls under the requirements prescribed in Article 142 (6) (a) through (h). Therefore, if the land actually used fails to meet the requirements of the above (6).

a.B.Article 142 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 78-3(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of December 31, 1981) Article 142 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Attorney Seo-sung, Kim Jong-hwan, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Attorney Park Jong-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu259 delivered on June 2, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1063 of Dec. 31, 1981) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act which applies to the date of commencement of the property tax of this case (1980.9.16) refers to the land which does not fall under the following items among the land in the area prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs with respect to the land subject to heavy taxation, land for factory, school site and miscellaneous land (excluding dry field, quarries, quarries) which is not actually used, and which does not meet the requirement of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1063 of the Local Tax Act).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the land of this case, which the defendant recognized as a public land under the local tax law as of September 16, 1980 and imposed tax, was established and operated on the ground from October 1972, and paid a corporate business tax (from 1972 to 1977) and value-added tax (after September 11, 1977), and the plaintiff registered the "parking lot business" in the articles of incorporation of this case as of January 11, 1976 and registered it on the 13th of the same month, and the plaintiff did not directly use the above land in accordance with the order to install and improve a simplified parking lot in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on June 27, 1980, the "central parking lot" as the name of the plaintiff, and at the same time, it cannot be viewed as the "public parking lot" under Article 16 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, which was not directly owned by the plaintiff as of December 24, 19806.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below is just because the land in this case does not fall under the official land as of the date of the commencement of the second-term property tax payment period in 1980, and thus the defendant's tax disposition is revoked. There is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles or the contradiction in the reasoning as to Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and Article 78-3 (4) 4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the precedents of party members cited in the theory of lawsuit are different, and therefore the above judgment of the court below cannot be a proper precedent in this case, and it cannot

With respect to the second ground:

The judgment of the court below pointed out the gist of the provision of subparagraph 4 (c) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act is nothing more than a family judgment in preparation for the case where the land of this case should be deemed to fall under the vacant land by differently interpreting the purport of the provision of subparagraph 4 (c) of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and the judgment of the court below that the land of this case does not fall under the vacant land is legitimate is as already stated in the judgment of the court below as to the first ground for appeal. Therefore, even

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju