[취득세부과처분취소][공1989.12.1.(861),1698]
A person who has acquired land waives the use of the land for the purpose of purpose on account of financial standing, etc. and justifiable grounds provided for in the proviso of Article 110-3 (3) 5 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986).
Article 110-3 (3) 5 (proviso) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) refers to cases where the acquired land is not used for the purpose of business due to external reasons, such as prohibition, restriction, etc. of use by administrative agencies, or where it is impossible to use it for the purpose of business due to other objective reasons, although there is no time or there is no time to use it for the purpose of business, and it does not include cases where the purchaser of the land waives his/her direct use for the purpose of business due to his/her financial standing or profit issues.
The proviso to Article 110-3 (3) 5 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986)
Croba Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant-Appellant] Kim In-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1037 delivered on October 14, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney:
Article 110-3 (3) 5 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) provides that a person designated for a location under Article 6 of the Local Industrial Development Act shall be exempted from the acquisition tax on real estate for business acquired within two years from the date of designation of the location for the purpose of use in the development zone, and the proviso of subparagraph 5 provides that if real estate for business is not used directly for the proper business without justifiable reasons within two years from the date of acquisition, the exempted acquisition tax shall be collected additionally.
According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case within the development district and newly constructed a factory building in accordance with the provisions of Article 6 of the Local Industrial Development Act, and then reduced the volume of export allocated to the plaintiff in accordance with the Han-U.S. Textiles Agreement in 1985, and expressed the intent that the import trader will not comply with the technical provision and product import agreement after changing the business plan. The plaintiff changed the business plan and suspended the new construction of the factory and transferred the above land to the plaintiff. Thus, the above reason is not a justifiable reason for not directly using the above land for its own proper business. This is because the above justifiable reason is not a justifiable reason for not being used for the original business, such as restricting the use of the acquired land, or because it is impossible to use the land for the original business purpose without time or for other objective reasons despite normal efforts to use the land for its own proper business purpose, and it does not include the case where the acquisitor directly waives his own financial or profit from the land.
The court below's support for the defendant's disposition imposing acquisition tax is just and there is no error of law, misunderstanding of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, or inconsistent reasoning. The arguments are groundless.
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 Young-young (Presiding Justice)