Jinho et al. (Attorney Yang Chang-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Mapo-gu

February 28, 1985

The imposition of property tax of KRW 3,445,476 on December 18, 1981 against the plaintiff and KRW 689,095 on December 18, 1981 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. According to Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 14, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-3, witness Nadong testimony, witness Nadong testimony and the result of on-site inspection of this court and the whole purport of oral argument that the plaintiff had no dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence 2-1, 3-1, 186-1, 324 and 186-4, and 189-6, 222 (the next land), a total of 186-4, 189-6, 18-1, 197, a simplified parking lot is installed and operated on the ground, which is the tax office having jurisdiction over Sep. 30, 197, and paid the value-added tax pursuant to this transaction, and the fact that the plaintiff continued to operate a simplified parking lot business on November 17, 198 and did not receive the tax amount imposed on the parking lot under the provisions of the Local Tax Act (the same shall apply to this case).

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the above land does not meet the requirement of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act as long as the land in this case is continuously used as a simple parking lot, (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is not applicable to the land (1). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the land in this case does not meet the requirement of Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (1) of the Local Tax Act, (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act, and 6) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act is not applicable to the land (1) 4 of the above case's land which is not yet used as a temporary parking lot, and 1) 6 (1) 4) excluding the land in fact that it does not meet the requirement of Article 142 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

However, according to the facts acknowledged above, the above land owned by the plaintiff is not a public land because it does not meet the requirements of land not actually being used among the public land requirements under Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act at the time, considering the circumstance where the parking lot was established and the actual use thereof, and the land to be excluded from public land under Article 78-3 (4) 4 (3) (the present same) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act is a parking lot for which the owner obtained permission for the installation of an off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act in order to directly use the land for general parking. The plaintiff's employment relation with the land at the time was used without permission for the off-road parking lot under the Parking Lot Act under the above Enforcement Rule, and it cannot be viewed as a temporary use of land, and thus it is not a public

3. Thus, since the disposition of imposition of the property tax and defense tax against the plaintiff by the defendant on the premise that the land of this case falls under the vacant as of the date the payment period of the property tax for the second term of 1980 and 1981 was illegal, the disposition of imposition of the property tax and defense tax against the plaintiff is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is justified and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant

March 14, 1985

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)