The validity of the latter part of Article 11(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which provides that "the land annexed to a building subject to completion inspection for which no completion inspection has been completed, shall be the subject of the Land Excess Profit Tax."

The latter part of Article 11(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which provides that "the land annexed to a building subject to completion inspection" as a type of the land annexed to an unauthorized building subject to land excess profit tax, shall be null and void because it does not exceed the limit of delegation under Article 8(1)4(c) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, which provides that "the land annexed to a building subject to completion inspection which

Article 8 (1) 4 (c) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 11 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Monotox

The Director of Gangnam District Office

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 82,884,180 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 1991 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of taxation; and

The plaintiff acquired 41.2 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") on August 2, 1974 for the purpose of construction of the building 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11-1 and 1-2 on the above 9th anniversary of the above 9th anniversary of the fact that the above 1, 3, 4, 5, 149.48 square meters of the ground of this case's construction of the above 9th construction of the above 19th construction of the above 19th construction of the above 19th construction of the building, the above 19th construction of the building without the above 9th construction of the above 19th construction of the building, and the plaintiff's construction of the above 19th construction of the building to the above 9th construction of the building by the head of Gangnam-gu 1 to the above 19th construction of the fire-fighting facilities, such as the fire-fighting facilities for construction of this case's construction of the building.

2. Whether taxation is unlawful

First, since Article 8 (1) 4 (c) of the Elementary and Secondary Tax Act and Article 11 (1) 4 (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Tax Act stipulate that if the owner of a building without permission for use or for the first time is not obliged to obtain permission for use of the land without permission for the first time and without permission for use or for the second time, the land without permission for use or for the second time is one of the land which is owned by the owner of a building without permission for use or for the first time and without permission for use or for the second time, the land which is subject to construction without permission for the first time and without permission for use or for the second time shall be excluded from the land which is owned by the owner of a building without permission for use or for the second time and without permission for use or for the second time, the land which is subject to construction without permission for the second time and without permission for use or for the second time shall be excluded from the land which is owned by the owner of a building without permission for use or for the second time.

As recognized earlier by the Plaintiff, the Defendant reported that the instant building was completed on September 25, 1990, which was the expiration date of the taxable period, after obtaining a lawful construction permit on the instant land, but that the instant land constitutes the land annexed to an unauthorized building as provided by Article 8(1)4(c) of the Elementary and Secondary Tax Act, with regard to the completion of the completion inspection on September 20, 1991, and that the instant tax disposition was unlawful under the latter part of Article 11(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Tax Act, which was null and void due to its violation of the mother law.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the revocation of the instant taxation disposition is reasonable and reasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim is accepted.

Judges Jinsung (Presiding Judge)