With respect to No. 1:

The court below affirmed the fact that the plaintiff corporation is an incorporated foundation established with the aim of fostering the sound national spirit by cutting the Buddhist fundamental doctrine and spreading the Buddhist doctrine on the basis of the Buddhist school, and is conducting Buddhist cultural business, Buddhist school business, Buddhist educational business, and other incidental business. The land in this case is stated in the articles of incorporation of the plaintiff corporation as basic property, and the expenses of the plaintiff corporation are covered by the negligence (real estate lease income) accrued from basic property including the land in this case and other income, and the articles of incorporation are stipulated in the articles of incorporation. Accordingly, the court below correctly recognized that part of the building in this case is appropriated for the proper purpose business expenses of the plaintiff corporation. The land in this case is "land for profit-making business operated by a non-profit corporation for the purpose of public interest to raise expenses necessary for the performance of its proper purpose business" under Article 131 (2) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 7532) which provides for the land excluded from the non-business property of the corporation, and there is no illegality in the judgment of the plaintiff corporation's non-business business.

With respect to the second ground:

The court below revoked all of the disposition imposing occasional property tax, urban planning tax, and defense tax on the land of this case imposed by the defendant on the land of this case on the premise that the land of this case falls under non-business land of the plaintiff corporation because it does not fall under non-business land of the non-business entity.

However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (the duty imposition statement, the duty reduction statement, and the statement of uniform name) without dispute in the establishment, the defendant issued an amount equivalent to 50/100 of the value of the land of this case as the property tax of this case because the land of this case constitutes non-business land of a corporation under Article 188 (1) 1 (4) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2743) and the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the property tax of this case.

However, even if the land of this case is not a land for non-business use of a corporation as seen earlier, it is evident that the land category is a temple site that still becomes a object of property tax assessment pursuant to Articles 181 and 180 subparagraph 1 (2) of the former Local Tax Act. Thus, according to Article 188 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (No. 2743) which was in force at the time of the taxable period of this case, 3/100 of its value should be imposed as property tax for the land of this case, i.e., the land of this case falling under Item (5). Since it is evident that the land of this case falls under Item (e) above, the part equivalent to 3/100 of the above land value among the disposition of imposition of property tax of this case shall not be deemed a legitimate disposition unless there are special circumstances.

Then, as above, since the land of this case is land falling under Article 180 subparagraph 1 of the former Local Tax Act, Article 235 of the same Act and Article 195 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act become a taxable object of urban planning tax under the provisions of Articles 236 and 237 of the same Act, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's disposition (the part of urban planning tax) of this case is unlawful. Meanwhile, Article 4 subparagraph 12 of the Defense Tax Act provides that 20/100 of the property tax amount to be paid pursuant to the provisions of the Local Tax Act shall be imposed as defense tax, so the part equivalent to 20/100 of the property tax amount of the defendant's disposition on imposition of the defense tax of this case, within the scope deemed legitimate, is legitimate, and all of the judgment below that revoked the entire disposition on imposition of urban planning tax and urban planning tax of this case is unlawful, and thus, it cannot be reversed by misapprehending the legal principles as to the result of the defendant's urban planning tax, urban planning tax and tax.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is to be deliberated and judged again, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)