Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides that "any person who intends to construct a factory in the national industrial complex, designated under the Industrial Sites and Development Act, shall be exempted from acquisition tax on the land for the factory that he first acquires within the relevant area, and on the land for business and buildings of the relevant factory, which are acquired within two years from the date of acquisition of such land."

Upon the amendment of the Local Tax Act by Act No. 4794, Article 276(1)1 was transferred to a person who intends to build a new factory within an industrial complex designated under the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and Article 276(1)1 was amended as "the land first acquired to build a new factory and the land for business and buildings acquired within five years from the date of acquisition of such land shall be exempted from acquisition tax." However, as the Local Tax Act was revised again by Act No. 5406 on August 30, 1997, Article 16 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act was amended as the same Article, "where the implementer of an industrial complex development project pursuant to the provisions of Article 16 of the Industrial Sites and Development Act intends to construct or extend a new factory after the construction of an industrial complex, real estate - the real estate acquired to construct an industrial complex shall be exempted from acquisition tax."

The above provisions of the former Local Tax Act stipulate that acquisition tax on the land for factory, etc. first acquired in the national industrial complex shall be exempted so that the legislative purpose of the above provision is to attract the factory in the national industrial complex, and in light of the legislative purpose of the provision and the subsequent amendments thereto, the "acquisition of the land for factory in the national industrial complex" referred to in the provision shall be deemed to mean the acquisition of the land for the industrial complex already developed. The land acquired by the operator of the industrial complex development project in the course of the implementation of the project shall not be the factory land under the provision even if the land is converted into the land for factory upon completion of the industrial complex development project (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu17254 delivered on June 12, 198).

Even according to the facts established by the court below, since the land of this case acquired by the plaintiff after reclaiming public waters and obtaining permission for use prior to approval on September 20, 1993 is merely merely the land acquired in the course of implementing the industrial complex development project, and it is clear that the plaintiff, who is the implementer of the industrial complex development project, does not acquire the land of the industrial complex already developed, acquisition tax shall not be exempted. Accordingly, acquisition tax shall not be exempted for the acquisition of the land of this case, which is the issue of whether the land is exempted from acquisition tax on the premise that it falls under the above factory land. Accordingly, acquisition tax shall not be exempted for the acquisition of the land of this case, forest land, and buildings in this case, which is the issue of whether the land is exempted from acquisition tax on the premise that it falls under the above factory land. Although the reasoning of the court below was not appropriate at the time of the judgment below, the conclusion is just, and thus, the argument

In addition, the court below cannot be deemed to have established non-taxation practices for the acquisition of the reclaimed land, forest land, and buildings in this case based on the response of its decision, and it cannot be deemed that the taxation disposition in this case does not violate the non-taxation practices or the principles of good faith on the grounds that the plaintiff did not acquire the reclaimed land, forest land, and buildings in this case with trust in response to the response. In light of the above principles and the records, it is just and acceptable in light of the above principles, and it cannot be said that there were errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the above principles or in violation of the precedents as alleged in the grounds of appeal

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)