Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981)

Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981) and Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that even if the land meets the requirements of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the above Enforcement Decree, it shall not be regarded as a temporary land if it does not meet the requirements of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the above Enforcement Decree, even though it does not meet the requirements of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the above Enforcement Decree, it shall not be regarded as a land which does not meet the requirements of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the above Enforcement Decree.

Article 142(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981); Article 78 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 414 of May 12, 1984)

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu367 delivered on September 11, 1984; 83Nu197 delivered on April 9, 1985

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Samcheon City, Attorney Kang-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu207 delivered on March 20, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. In the reasoning of the judgment below, the land as indicated in its reasoning is the land whose land category was originally cultivated as a paddy field, and the land category was changed to a site due to the completion of the land substitution project, and the plaintiff purchased and owned the land as stated in its holding from November 11, 1970 to November 30, 1979 when the land division was completed. However, in light of the above fact-finding, the court below acknowledged the fact that the land was cultivated for the first seven years prior to the date of the purchase of the land by continuously cultivating Bori and bean, and it was not temporary but de facto cultivated as farmland. Thus, in light of the above fact-finding, the land as stated in its judgment is a land which was continuously cultivated, and actually cultivated as a farmland, and thus, the land category was changed to a site due to the land substitution disposition, and the land category was purchased from November 11, 1970 to November 30, 199, and it did not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence examination or the records.

2. According to Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663, Dec. 31, 1981) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1063, Dec. 31, 1981), land, factory site, school site and miscellaneous land (excluding dry field, stone collection site) in an area determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs with respect to the requirements of land subject to heavy taxation, which are the land excluding those enumerated below, among land actually not being used. In this case, building, building constructed after January 14, 1974, building for gardening, temporary facilities which are not commonly used shall not be considered as ground settlement, temporary facilities and other temporary use of land, etc., which do not meet the requirements of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) (a) through (h) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and if it does not meet the prescribed requirements of Article 147 (1) (6) (h) of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, at the time of the enforcement of the above Act, land, school site, factory site, and miscellaneous land in the area as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs shall not be considered as subject to heavy taxation because it does not meet the requirements of land to be actually used unless it is a temporary use, and it does not meet the requirements of land to be excluded from public land. (Article 82Nu367 delivered on September 11, 1984). Thus, at the time of the judgment of the court below, the court below is just in holding that the land of the plaintiff at the time of the judgment of the court below was not temporarily or continuously used in the same manner as the approval of the court below (from 1979 to 1981) and it does not constitute a public land under Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and it does not constitute a public land under Article 38 of the Local Tax Act.

3. Therefore, 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 Justices.

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