The meaning of “if the business is actually completed in unit of partition” under Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act.

For the purpose of subparagraph 4 of Article 23 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, the term “if a project is actually completed by sectional unit” means the time when the construction is completed and it can be used for the purpose of the relevant land, such as construction, etc., and, in addition to the completion of the land suspension work, it means the time the construction is completed to the extent that the use of the land is good.

Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act, Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu16604 delivered on January 25, 1994 (dong) 93Nu17119 delivered on January 25, 1994

Plaintiff

The Director of the Pacific District Office

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu26323 delivered on May 26, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 8(3) of the Land Excess Profit Tax Act and Article 23 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the case of incorporation of land into a land readjustment project district under the Land Excess Profit Tax Act after the acquisition of land, the period from the date of designation of the project execution district to two years after the actual completion of the project in the unit of subdivision shall not be deemed idle land. In this context, the term “when the project is actually completed in the unit of subdivision” refers to the time when the construction is actually completed so that the land can be used for the purpose of the land, such as construction, etc., and it refers to the time when the construction is completed and the use of the land is enforced in addition to the completion of

However, the court below, contrary to its opinion, held that the land in this case was actually completed as a unit of subdivision on July 15, 1986, when the suspension of the land is completed without relation to the installation of electric power, water supply and drainage facilities, etc. even before the completion of the land readjustment project, on the premise that the land in this case was completed in fact, even before the completion of the land readjustment project, and that the land in this case constitutes idle land as of the end of the scheduled period of determination in this case for which two years have passed since the completion of the suspension of the land in this case. However, the court below's determination that the land in this case was actually completed is contrary to the legal principles mentioned above, but the construction permit was possible from the completion of road construction and water supply and drainage facilities construction work on the date of completion of the suspension of the land in this case. This error does not affect

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)