(b) The case holding that "justifiable cause" under Article 110-3 (3) 15 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) constitutes "justifiable cause"

B. According to Article 110-3(3)15 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986), if Party A purchased land from the Anti-Industrial Corporation to relocate the factory and paid the balance to the Corporation, but the contract was rescinded without completing the registration of transfer of ownership before two years have elapsed since the date of acquisition on the ground that the loan of factory construction fund stated in the initial guidance was not made, and returned the contract again to the above Corporation, the obligation under the tax law to be directly used for the unique business is extinguished, and as a result, this constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason that Party A could not use the land for its proper purpose within two years from the date of acquisition.

With respect to No. 1:

Since acquisition tax is imposed upon the acquisition of the real estate by taxation object, the taxation claim is naturally arising from the existence of the taxation requirement of the acquisition act, and it cannot be affected by the exercise of the already established taxation claim even if the contract is cancelled and returned after lawful acquisition, as well as by the agreement after lawful acquisition.

With respect to the second ground:

Article 110-3 (3) 15 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986) provides that acquisition tax on real estate for business acquired within the period prescribed by the Presidential Decree in order to install a factory suitable for the provisions of the same Act in the inducement area under the Industrial Placement Act shall be exempted. However, if it is not used directly for the unique business within two years without justifiable reasons, it shall be collected additionally. Thus, even if the purchaser of such real estate used the real estate for the proper purpose and for the two years long without justifiable reasons, he/she disposes of it to a third party, the acquisition tax may be collected additionally.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff acquired the real estate (land) of this case from the Dobong Industrial Corporation on September 4, 1981 and paid the balance on March 6, 1983 under the Local Tax Act in order to relocate the factory of the Taeyang Industrial Corporation located in Dobong-gu Seoul, Seoul, which he manages, but did not complete the registration of transfer of ownership on May 4 of the same year on the ground that the loan for factory construction fund as stated in the initial guidance for occupancy (Evidence A) was not made, and returned it again to the above Corporation. In this case, it is reasonable to interpret that the obligation of the plaintiff to directly use for the plaintiff's unique business is extinguished and that the obligation of the above tax law is not used for the proper purpose within two years, and that the above provision does not purport to collect acquisition tax until the case where the real estate is returned again within two years on the ground that the above financial situation is not sufficient.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the legitimate reasons under Article 110-3 (3) 15 of the former Local Tax Act, and this affected the judgment, which is therefore justified.

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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)