[취득세부과처분취소][공1992.9.1.(927),2447]
The case holding that even if there was a prohibition under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, the land could not be used, it cannot be used as justifiable grounds under the Local Tax Act that could escape from heavy acquisition tax if it had already been known at the time of acquiring the land.
The case holding that in the acquisition of land, as long as it was aware of the fact that the construction and alteration of the form and quality was prohibited due to the designation of a park site on the land, it cannot be used as justifiable grounds for not being used directly for the relevant business within one year after the acquisition (registration) of the land on the grounds of prohibition under the relevant Acts
Article 107 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act and Article 127 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act
Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6590 delivered on December 7, 1990 (Gong1991,503) 91Nu4515 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992,803) 91Nu13281 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong192,2308)
1. A person who is not a party to the contract, but is not a party to the contract, and is not a party to the contract.
Gyeonggi-do Leecheon-gun
Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu13293 delivered on October 18, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the purpose of constructing a social welfare center annexed to the plaintiff church, the court below acquired it, after which the plaintiff did not make an effort to cancel the above prohibition by using a 21.7 square meters in part of the land, and used it for the land of this case as a field where some were able to cultivate, and the remaining land was planted. On the other hand, since December 7, 1976, it was designated as a park site under the Urban Planning Act as an area where construction or alteration of form and quality is impossible, since it was designated as a park site under the Urban Planning Act. The plaintiff could change the situation after being aware of the prohibition of construction on the land of this case, and the above prohibition may be cancelled according to the plaintiff's efforts. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquisition of the land of this case and the land of this case for which the plaintiff did not directly use the land of this case, since it did not make an effort to cancel the above prohibition but did not directly use of the land of the above land of this case.
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)