[재산세부과처분취소][공1985.9.1.(759),1138]
(a) the meaning of “the date on which construction can be effected” under Article 75-2 subparag. 11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;
(b) Requirements to deem that the non-taxation practices under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes have been established.
A. Article 75-2(1111)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides for land excluded from a corporation’s non-business land under Article 142(1)1(7)(e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, “the date on which a project can be constructed as a unit of subdivision, as land within a land readjustment project district is actually completed in a unit of subdivision,” means the date on which construction is completed even before a land substitution disposition notice is issued
B. The fact that there was an omission of taxation for a given period alone is not enough to view that there was a national tax practice generally accepted by taxpayers under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that there is a circumstance to deem that the tax authority’s speech and behavior suggesting the imposition tax on taxpayers and that it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to trust it due to the failure to impose tax for a given period. However, it should be deemed that there was a practice of national tax administration accepted by taxpayers
(a) Article 142(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 75-2 subparag. 11 (b) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;
Supreme Court Decision 82Nu58 Decided July 27, 1982, 84Nu55 Decided May 22, 1984
Attorney Kim Sung-nam, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Attorney Park Jae-gu et al.
Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu613 delivered on March 19, 1985
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
(1) Under Article 142 (1) 1 (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the phrase “the date on which construction can be completed as a unit of partition,” which provides for land excluded from a corporation’s non-business land pursuant to Article 142 (1) 1 (e) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, means the date on which construction can be completed even before a disposition of replotting is publicly announced (see Supreme Court Decision 82Nu58, Jul. 27, 1982). (See Supreme Court Decision 82Nu58, Jul. 27, 1982). The court below recognized the fact that the land readjustment project for neighboring land, including the land in this case, recognizes the fact that construction is possible at the time of completion of construction and the date is “the date on which construction can be completed in fact,” and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit. It does not conflict with the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case.
(2) The fact that there was an omission of taxation for a fixed period alone is not sufficient to view that there was a national tax practice generally accepted by taxpayers under Article 18(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and that there exists a circumstance where the tax authorities made a speech and behavior suggesting taxpayers to impose taxes, and it is not unreasonable for taxpayers to trust it due to the failure to impose taxes for a fixed period of time, but it should be deemed that there was a practice of national tax administration generally accepted by taxpayers under Article 18(2) of the same Act. However, the court below's decision that the court below did not admit that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the practice of non-taxation without imposing heavy taxes on the land of this case was established at the original time does not necessarily mean that there was such a practice of national tax administration immediately. The court below's determination of the process of cooking the evidence conducted in the course of taking the above measures
(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 Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)