[취득세부과처분취소][하집1991(3),558]
Whether a corporation's land for business purposes constitutes a case of non-business land under Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act where the land for business purposes is transferred comprehensively to another corporation and used for its original purpose
The meaning of the case where a corporation's land used for the business of a corporation under the provisions of Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 191) becomes a non-business land within five years after the acquisition thereof means the case where the corporation's land used for the business of a corporation is converted into a non-business land within five years from the ownership of the land used for the business of the corporation, or where the corporation does not sell it to another person within five years, and is not used for the original purpose. Thus, if the corporation itself is a comprehensive transfer to another corporation and is used for the original purpose, it does not constitute a non-business land of the corporation even if the land
Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act
East Industrial Company
The East Mine Development Market
1. The defendant's disposition of imposition of acquisition tax of KRW 41,383,150 against the plaintiff as of June 7, 1990 shall be revoked.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
The plaintiff is a corporation whose main business purpose is wholesale business, gold iron and shipbuilding manufacturing business. On October 28, 1987, the non-party land development corporation purchased 265,276,650 square meters of factory site 165-4, 1657, 1657, 1650 won from the non-party land development corporation (hereinafter the "the land of this case") in Choyang-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-si-si, and constructed 1,115.72 square meters of buildings for factories and storage on the ground of this case and used them as the plaintiff's combined scrap scrap ju-dong-dong-si-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-dong-dong-dong-do-dong-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do.
As the plaintiff's disposition is unlawful, first, the meaning of "where the relevant land has become non-business land within five years after its acquisition" under Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act refers to the case where the land used for business purposes has not been used for the proper business purpose of a corporation because the situation has changed, and is again owned by a corporation without being used for non-business purposes. Thus, as in the case of this case, the plaintiff used the land of this case for the proper business purpose of the plaintiff corporation and sold it to another person shall not constitute non-business land under the above provision of the Act. Second, Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes applied mutatis mutandis under Article 65 of the Local Tax Act shall not be applicable to the case where the land of this case has been sold for non-business purposes under the above provision of the Local Tax Act after its interpretation or practice was generally accepted by the taxpayer. Thus, the Minister of Home Affairs, the decision-making authority, within 2 years after its new interpretation or practice, shall not apply to the above land for non-business purposes.
Therefore, even if the plaintiff purchased the land of this case and then used it as a site for the non-party company, it constitutes a comprehensive transfer of all the above land, buildings, etc. after the non-party company purchased the land of this case. The above transfer took place within five years after the plaintiff acquired the land of this case, as seen above, Gap evidence No. 5 (written contract for acquisition), Eul evidence No. 6-2, and Eul evidence No. 1-2 (written report for non-business use) and the testimony for witness 1-2. The reason why the plaintiff transferred the land of this case to the non-party company is that the non-party company acquired the above land of this case for non-business purpose by using the above land of this case as a new building for 1/6's own purpose. The non-party company acquired the above land of this case to the non-party company for non-party company's own purpose and to use the land of this case for non-business purpose in light of the principle of integration of manufacturing parts within the non-party company's 1-class company's original purpose. The non-party company acquired the land of this case's original purpose.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is illegal shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant who has lost the lawsuit as per Disposition.
Judges Kim Jong-il (Presiding Judge) Cho Chang-nam only