A. The base point of time of land, which is "in construction," stipulated under Article 194-9 subparagraph 1 subparagraph 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783, Aug. 4, 1989) as one of the lands excluded from taxation of land and multi-owned tax (=the base date of taxation)

(b) In the case of a single construction which is not a joint development zone designated as an urban design zone under the Building Act, whether it falls under subparagraph 1 (5) of Article 194-9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act of the land where regulation became effective due to non-permission (affirmative)

(c) Whether a garage as required by the Automobile Transport Business Act, which is leased to a motor vehicle transport business operator, and the land designated and used, falls under the category of "sub-employment land" under subparagraph 14 of Article 194-9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act excluded from taxation subject to heavy holding tax (affirmative);

A. Article 194-9 Item 1 Item 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12783 of Aug. 4, 1989) provides land as one of the land excluded from taxation subject to heavy holding tax means land under construction as of the tax base date.

B. In the case of a single construction which is not a joint development, which is designated as an urban design zone pursuant to the Building Act, and is not a joint development, the construction is not entirely prohibited, and in the case of a single construction which is not a joint development, it is possible to jointly or independently construct it by consultation, sale, exchange, etc. with the owner of the adjacent land, so the land is "land within the area or district where construction is permitted only for the buildings meeting the purpose of designating the area or district, etc. under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 194-9 subparagraph 1, 5 of the former Enforcement Decree

(c) It is not shown that the owner of a garage under subparagraph 14 of Article 194-9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is a landowner. Thus, the land which the owner leases to a motor vehicle transport business entity and uses as a garage after obtaining a license for the motor vehicle transport business is designated by the Motor Vehicle Transport Business Act and is still used as a garage shall be the land for which the owner is obligated to install a garage under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, which is excluded from the taxable objects of the motor vehicle transport business.

(a) B. (c) Article 234-2(1)1(a) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1986) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783 of Aug. 4, 1989); Article 194-9 subparag. 19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783 of Aug. 4, 1989); Article 8-2 of the Building Act; Article 6(2) of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 15-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu8534 delivered on June 11, 1991 (Gong1991, 1944)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu3234 delivered on September 26, 1990

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 194-9 Item 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783, Aug. 24, 1989; hereinafter the same) provides that the land recognized by the head of the Si/Gun shall be excluded from the land for public interest due to the need for landscaping, etc., and the land recognized by the head of the Gun shall be excluded from the land for public interest. Since there is no evidence that the land No. 2 in the attached Table No. 199 of the decision of the plaintiff is appropriate to be placed in the public interest public interest due to the need for landscaping, etc., the above land shall not be excluded from the land for public interest. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just and there is no error in

(2) On the third ground for appeal;

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below is just in the judgment of the court below in light of the records, on the premise that the date of obtaining the building permit for the land No. 3 in the attached Table No. 3 as of May 1, 1988, which is the fact that there is no dispute between the parties after April 13, 198, the tax base date of the tax disposition of this case, and that the land under construction, which is excluded from the object of taxation of land and multi-owned tax, is the land under construction as of the tax base date, refers to the land under construction as of the tax base date, and therefore, the above land does not constitute the land excluded from the object of taxation of the above Item No. 9, and there is no error in the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit,

(3) As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the land listed in the judgment of the court below was designated as a diving zone urban planning design zone under the Building Act by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 397 on July 4, 1984 and regulated by the long-term comprehensive plan to induce efficient development pursuant to the urban planning function and aesthetic view for the purpose of promoting urban planning function and aesthetic view, and that the land was designated as an area where construction is possible only jointly with neighboring land and it is not entirely prohibited, but can be jointly or independently constructed through consultation, sale, exchange, etc. with the owner of adjacent land, and therefore, the above land is not clearly justified in the determination of the court below since it is not clear that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above since the above land was designated as an urban design zone from July 4, 1984 to May 1, 198.

However, according to the records, the above 14 Item 1 of Article 194-9 Item 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act does not show that the plaintiff, the owner of the above 1609 square meters from the above 14 Item 14 is limited to the case where the owner of the above 14 Item 4 is the land excluded from the object of taxation of possession tax, so the above 14 Item 4 Item is illegal in this respect since the non-party company's lease of it to the non-party 10 on March 10, 1979 and the above non-party company designated the above land as a garage which is required by the Automobile Transport Business Act on October 6, 199 and continues to use it as a garage until the tax base date of this case. Thus, the court below's decision that the above 14 Item 14 item is unlawful in this respect since it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of Article 194-9 Item 14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

(4) Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)