[2] Whether the initial date of the grace period excluded from non-business land of a corporation subject to the acquisition tax is whether the reclamation licensee has obtained the approval or permission for use even where the purchaser of reclaimed land did not know the approval or permission for use to the reclamation licensee (affirmative)

[2] In light of the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 5337 of Apr. 10, 197), the "cases where approval or permission for use is obtained prior to the authorization date of completion of construction" under Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536 of Dec. 31, 1991) refers to cases where a person who has obtained permission for use from the Minister of Construction and Transportation prior to the authorization date of completion of construction pursuant to Article 13 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act. It does not mean cases where the purchaser of reclaimed land obtains prior consent or permission for use from the person who has obtained permission for reclamation of public waters pursuant to the parcelling-out agreement. Even if the purchaser of reclaimed land did not know about the approval or permission for use from the person who has obtained permission for reclamation of public waters, it shall be the starting date of the grace period of four years for the above subparagraph 9.

1. On the second and third grounds for appeal

Article 73 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536, Dec. 31, 1991; hereinafter the same) provides that the acquisition of the above reclaimed land shall be based on the balance payment date under the contract in principle: Provided, That the remainder payment date under the contract and the acquisition of the above reclaimed land by onerous succession falling under Article 111 (5) and (6) of the former Local Tax Act shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date of actual payment. Meanwhile, Article 73 (10) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that the original acquisition of the land due to reclamation, reclamation, etc. shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date of authorization of completion of construction: Provided, That the acquisition of the above reclaimed land, etc. from the person who obtained the reclamation license, etc. shall be deemed to have been acquired on the date of acquisition of the above reclaimed land at the time of acquisition of the original reclamation license after the date of acquisition of the reclaimed land at the time of acquisition by the reclamation licensee.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff entered into a contract for occupancy of an industrial complex with the non-party half-month Industrial Complex entrusted with the sale business by the non-party half-month Industrial Complex Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party half-month Corporation") on August 31, 1990 with the purchase price of the land in the industrial complex in the Silan Industrial Complex as KRW 1,468,076,750. The plaintiff paid the down payment amount of KRW 440,423,025 on the date of the above contract, and the remaining amount of KRW 1,027,653,725 was paid more than April 30, 199, which was the initial contract date and until October 30, 191, which was completed the construction completion inspection of the land in this case after obtaining the completion inspection from the non-party half-yearly Industrial Complex Corporation after obtaining the completion inspection on October 15, 1993, which was newly constructed on September 14, 1995.

According to the above facts, in this case, the date of original acquisition (the date of permission for use) under the Local Tax Act of the non-party Corporation was June 21, 1990, and since the plaintiff actually paid the remainder on October 30, 1991, the acquisition date of the land of this case, which is a corporation, shall be October 30, 1991, which actually belongs to the payment date of the remainder. Thus, the plaintiff's commencement of new construction work on the land of this case was about September 14, 1994, and since the plaintiff's commencement of new construction work on the land of this case was about September 14, 1994, the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536, Dec. 31, 1991) did not affect the plaintiff's remaining payment date of the land of this case without directly using the land for its original purpose, the decision of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land of this case.

2. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the provisions of Articles 12 and 13 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Act No. 5337 of Apr. 10, 1997; hereinafter the same), the term "cases where approval or permission for use is obtained prior to the authorization date of completion of construction" under Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536 of Dec. 31, 1991) refers to cases where a person who obtained permission for reclamation of public waters obtains permission for use from the Minister of Construction and Transportation before the authorization date of completion of construction pursuant to Article 13 of the former Public Waters Reclamation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536 of Oct. 28, 1997).

Therefore, in this case, the starting date of the four-year grace period under subparagraph 9 above shall be June 21, 1990 when the non-party construction who obtained a license for reclamation of public waters obtained permission, and the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the four-year grace period has not elapsed since the date of the authorization for completion of reclaimed land was just in accordance with the above legal principles, and this does not include the purport that the above permission date should be the initial date of the use permission without asking the purchaser's land and the site. Thus, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grace period for the determination of non-business land which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the ground of appeal. The assertion is without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)