A. The meaning of "land which cannot be used due to reasons not attributable to the landowner" under Article 78-3 subparagraph 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986) excluded from the public land subject to the property tax

(b) The case holding that it does not fall under the land of the above "A" because it is possible to obtain permission again when an application for change of form and quality is filed for construction on land;

(a) The phrase “land which cannot be used due to any cause not attributable to the landowner” under Article 78-3 subparag. 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of Dec. 31, 1986), which is the land excluded from the public land, refers to the land which a landowner is unable to use due to any objective reason unrelated to his will, but is unable to use due to the use of the

(b) The case holding that it does not fall under the land of the above "A" because it is possible to obtain permission again when an application for change of form and quality is filed for construction on land;

Article 78-3 subparagraph 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 of December 31, 1986)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Metropolitan Government Head of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Law, Attorney Park Ba-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8677 delivered on March 11, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land of this case was first donated to Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 9, 1983 on the condition that the land of this case was donated to the public land of 10% more than 10% and 228 square meters more than 10% of the land of this case and the land of this case was first donated to the public land of 1985 and 1986, but its current status was no ground settlement as of the date of payment period of property tax of 1986, and the area exceeded 62 square meters. The plaintiff, around September 26, 1983, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office for the application for permission of change of form and quality of land of this case, on the condition that the land of this case was donated to the public land of 10% more than 10% more than 10%, and the defendant, who was delegated the inside of the above permission of this case, requested the plaintiff to supplement it again because it is too small to the public land of 16 months.

However, Article 18 (1) 1 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) provides that property tax shall be imposed on public land. Whether public land is subject to imposition of property tax at a rate higher than that of general land is aimed at indirectly compelling landowners who are leaving such land without economic use according to their original purpose and using it as much as possible in accordance with the economic usage of the land so as to bring about defects in national economic development through efficient use of the land (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu105 delivered on Nov. 24, 1987). Thus, according to the above legislative purport of Article 78-3 (1) 1 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986), Article 78-3 (1) 1 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5878), and it is impossible for the plaintiff to use the land without any objective land alteration of land form and quality due to be found in accordance with subparagraph 10 (1).

The judgment of the court below that judged the land which was excluded from the vacant land in this case as the opposing opinion is that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to Article 78-3 subparag. 20 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is obvious that this error had affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.