The case holding that it cannot be seen that the detailed and detailed land excess gains and disposal defects for the land prohibited by the administrative instructions are evident.

Even in cases of the prohibition of use of land by administrative instruction, it shall be interpreted that the idle land subject to the land excess profit tax should be excluded from the idle land subject to the land excess profit tax in accordance with the provisions of Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act concerning the prohibition of use due to the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes. However, even if there is a serious defect in the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes that misleads the construction of Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that such defect is apparent in appearance. Thus,

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profits Tax Act

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 93Na5083 delivered on June 23, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below interpreted that even in the case of the prohibition of use of the land of this case under the administrative order of the head of Busan Metropolitan City Mayor, the idle land subject to the land excess profit tax in accordance with Article 8 (3) of the Land Excess profit Tax Act shall be excluded from the idle land subject to the land excess profit tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, so even if there is a serious defect in the interpretation of the Acts and subordinate statutes, it cannot be deemed that such defect is apparent in appearance. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)