[2] Whether a corporation's "employee of a corporation" under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides the grounds for exclusion from non-business land of the corporation, includes employees belonging to its subsidiary, etc.

[3] The case holding that where a corporation did not acquire the land for the residence of employees and completed the construction on the land and immediately leases the building to the subsidiary, it cannot be deemed as a non-business land under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[2] Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 195) provides that "land acquired to build a company house, dormitory, or dormitory for the residence of an employee of a corporation (including a representative) shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation." Thus, "employee of a corporation" under this provision refers only to employees belonging to the corporation, such as providing labor, and employees belonging to the subsidiary, etc. in which the corporation made an investment do not belong.

[3] The case holding that in case where a corporation did not acquire the land for the residence of employees, completed the building on the land, and immediately leases it to its subsidiary without using it for its employees, it is difficult to view it as a non-business land under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995)

1. As to the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found, based on related evidence, that the plaintiff constructed a hotel and paid KRW 1,515,80,00,00 as the landscape construction cost, and KRW 374,50,00 as the landscape production cost, and the landscape gardening construction work, and that the landscape of the hotel is installed around the hotel and the landscape of the sculpture manufactured is installed around the hotel. The court below held that the defendant's disposition was unlawful, since the landscape of the hotel is merely an incidental facility of the hotel building, not an incidental facility of the hotel building, but an object of the right to the land, and all of them cannot be deemed as an independent building, structure, and special ancillary facility that are subject to acquisition tax, and thus, the defendant's construction cost and landscape production cost are included in the tax base of the hotel building, and thus the disposition of imposing penalty tax of KRW 20,818,060,5724,950 (including penalty tax) is unlawful.

In light of relevant statutes and records, the above recognition and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation of incidental facilities of a building subject to acquisition tax, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

This part of the grounds for appeal is not accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 30, 1993, the plaintiff purchased a total of 7,517 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") and 7,00 square meters (hereinafter "the land in this case") for non-business use of the corporation, and completed the construction on September 6, 1994, and completed the construction around September 28, 1994. The court below found that the defendant imposed a heavy taxation rate of 190,476,00 won (including additional tax) on the land acquired to build a residential building of the corporation's employees, and determined that the land in this case constitutes a ground for non-business use of the corporation under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 195, hereinafter "former Enforcement Decree").

Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that "the land acquired to build a company house, dormitory, or dormitory, etc. for the residence of an employee of the corporation (including a representative) shall not be deemed land for non-business use of the corporation." The "employee of the corporation" under this provision means only the employee belonging to the corporation due to the provision of labor, etc., and the employee belonging to the subsidiary, etc. of the corporation in which the corporation in question has invested. According to the records, the plaintiff leased the building and the land of this case to the non-party Large School Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party Co., Ltd.") in which the plaintiff invested in full on June 29, 1995 and received rent. The non-party Co., Ltd can know the fact that the building of this case was used as the accommodation of employees working at the hotel with the building of this case and the land of this case. In light of this, it is difficult to view the plaintiff's land of this case as the non-party Co., Ltd.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise has an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by interpreting the grounds that are not deemed non-business land under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree as non-business land.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the disposition of imposition of acquisition tax on the land of this case shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)