[취득세부과처분취소][공1994.7.1.(971),1864]
The case holding that there is a justifiable reason under the provisions of Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act in exchange for a factory site adjacent to a factory due to the inconvenience in the use of the land used as a field site.
The case holding that there is a justifiable reason under the provisions of Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act in the exchange of land used as a site for factory in contact with an existing factory because the ownership relationship is not connected with the existing factory and it is difficult to use it because it is jointly with another company.
Local Tax Act Article 112-3
Attorney Park Jong-sik, et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant
Osan Market Attorney Yoon Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu21264 delivered on December 16, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. On the first ground for appeal:
In a case where the Plaintiff Company, a corporation whose business purpose is the paper and the processing business, etc., purchased the instant land from the Non-Party 3 Mutual Aid Co., Ltd. on July 29, 191 and had the same company conduct operational activities in the instant land and building until the factory relocation, but was notified from the time on January 9, 192, and used it as the field yard, such as pulp material, etc., within one year from the date of acquisition of the instant land, the Plaintiff does not constitute the case where the Plaintiff acquired the non-business land under Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
Although the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is somewhat inappropriate, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment because the land in this case is not a non-business land of a corporation, and thus does not constitute an object of heavy taxation of acquisition tax. Therefore, we cannot accept the argument that the judgment of the court below contains an error of law in the grounds and inconsistent reasoning.
2. On the second ground for appeal:
In accordance with the court below's lawful determination, when the plaintiff used the land of this case as a field yard such as notice and pulp material, etc., if the land of this case is not connected with the existing factory, and its ownership relation is co-ownership with another company and it is difficult to use it, so it is more efficient to prepare a field yard, there is a justifiable reason for the exchange. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the land of this case constitutes a non-business land of a corporation as provided in Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act.
The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate grounds such as theory of lawsuit.
It cannot be readily concluded that there is no justifiable ground for the above exchange by the Plaintiff, even though it was well known that the use of the instant land was inconvenient at the time of acquiring the instant land. This 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 Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)