According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff buried public waters in front of the Jung-gu, Ulsan-si and obtained authorization of completion on November 29, 1989, and used 137,747 square meters out of its shares as container charging stations (the record appears to have made a clerical error on February 28, 1992). The court below determined that the plaintiff's sale of the land of this case, which is part of the above, to prevent the aggravation of the financial situation and to rationalize the management, constitutes a non-business land under Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (the provision amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536 of Dec. 31, 191), which provides for non-business land, to the extent that it does not constitute a legitimate ground for non-business use-related land, and that the sale of the land was not subject to the restriction on the transfer of the land under the conditions of non-business use-related land.

However, Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act only purports that the land reclaimed under the Public Waters Reclamation Act is excluded from non-business land without asking whether it was used directly for its own purpose on the premise that it was owned, and it cannot be said that the sale to other land without holding it should not inquire whether it was a justifiable reason. Thus, if it is not used directly for the unique business or sold to other within four years without holding it within the grace period of four years from the date of acquisition, it shall not be exempted from the application of heavy tax rate because it falls under non-business land unless there are justifiable reasons to determine whether it is non-business land (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu226 delivered on Nov. 13, 1992; 93Nu17546 delivered on May 13, 1994).

In addition, without detailed deliberation and determination as to the purpose and circumstances in which the Plaintiff participated in the reclamation of the instant land, the detailed usage status of the instant land, the management status of the Plaintiff and the need to recover invested capital, the circumstances leading to the conclusion of the contract, etc., are insufficient to readily conclude that the sale process acknowledged by the lower court has justifiable reasons for the sale of the instant land.

Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate grounds in selling land acquired through the reclamation of public waters, but it did not exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the above justifiable grounds, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The defendant's appeal pointing this out is with merit.

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.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)