[2] The case holding that it does not constitute a case where there exists a justifiable reason for non-use even if a corporation which is a business of purpose of housing construction, etc. acquired land for housing construction purpose and obtained conditional housing construction project approval, and there were reasons such as rejection of a written report on non-performance of construction terms

[2] The case holding that the above corporation cannot be deemed to have made a normal effort to use the above land for its original purpose, and therefore, it cannot be deemed to have justifiable grounds for non-use of the above land, since it cannot be deemed to have made a reasonable ground for non-use of the above land, since it cannot be deemed to have made a normal effort to use the above land for its original purpose 4 years from the time of acquisition of the above land, since it cannot be deemed that there was a justifiable ground for non-use of the above land, since it cannot be deemed to have been a legitimate ground for non-use of the above land, since it cannot be deemed that the above corporation made a normal effort to use the above land for its original purpose 4 years from the time of its acquisition of the above land, since there was no change in the housing construction project plan and all approval for the housing construction project plan were revoked. In this case, the above corporation sold the above land due to the aggravation of financial standing and the time of its application for a change in the housing construction project plan.

According to Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4611, Dec. 27, 1993; hereinafter the same) and Article 84-4(1) and (4)10 of the former Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13919, Jun. 29, 1993; hereinafter the same), land acquired for housing construction by a corporation for purposes of housing construction without asking whether it has been directly used for housing construction for four years from the date of its acquisition under the premise that it is owned, and is excluded from non-business land without asking whether it has been used for housing construction for four years from the date of its acquisition or within four years from the date of its acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da13954, Apr. 19, 197). Thus, it cannot be deemed that a corporation should not use the land for other purposes without justifiable reasons for non-business purposes for the pertinent period of 194 years or less without justifiable reasons for non-business purposes.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below concluded a construction project plan on March 3, 1992 on the land of this case on which the plaintiff company engaged in the housing construction business without any prohibition or restriction under the law, and purchased the land of this case on March 22, 1994 and arranged the obstacles to the land of this case on May 25 of the same year before the commencement of construction, but did not complete disposal of the land of this case on the condition that the construction project plan should be completed in full for the land of this case and the delayed payment of local taxes should not be seen as being 9. The plaintiff failed to perform the above approval conditions even if it submitted a construction report to the defendant for February 1995, and the construction report was rejected on June 21 of the same year on the land of this case on the ground that there was no violation of the law regarding the construction project plan of this case on August 28, 1994 that the plaintiff had been subject to alteration of the existing construction plan of this case on the land of this case for non-party 16.

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)