The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below added a sales contract to purchase the land and buildings of this case on December 24, 1990 for the purpose of using them as its office, and decided that the real estate rental business of the plaintiff, which was exempted from the acquisition tax and registration tax, was unlawful under Article 84-4 (2) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, since the plaintiff's articles of incorporation revised the National Pension Act's articles of incorporation with the approval of the Minister of Health and Welfare on the 10th of the same month, added the land and buildings of this case to the purpose of business, and completed the registration thereof on the 29th of the same month, and completed the registration on the 27th of the same month, the building, and the 237.68th of the 5th of the above building, and the 172.98th of the 1st and second floors of the same month, respectively, to the non-party company. The plaintiff's articles of incorporation defined only the business stipulated in Article 23 of the former National Pension Act as its own business.

According to the proviso of Article 110-3(1) and the proviso of Article 128-2(1) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991), the exempted acquisition tax and registration tax shall be additionally collected if the acquired property is not used directly for its proper business without any justifiable reason within one year from the date of acquisition (registration date). Here, the scope of its unique business should be determined based on the business purpose of the corporation at the time when the cause of additional collection of acquisition tax and registration tax occurs due to the corporation's failure to directly use the acquired property for its own business within a grace period, and it should not be determined based on the objective business after the occurrence of the cause

As duly determined by the court below, if the plaintiff added the real estate rental business for the use of the pertinent land and buildings to the purpose business even though the real estate rental business was not a target business, but within the grace period of the next one year, and thereby the amendment of the articles of incorporation and the corporate registration procedure for the registration of the corporation, the plaintiff's inherent business related to the use of the pertinent property should be deemed to include the lease of the instant building as at the time of the occurrence of the cause of additional collection of the acquisition tax and registration tax. The judgment below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the unique business under the Local Tax Act. It is not appropriate for the court below to determine that the real estate rental business which was a target business under the corporate register of the plaintiff due to the amendment of the articles of incorporation approved by the director general of the division, is included in the real estate rental business at the time of the expiration of the grace period, but it does not affect the conclusion that the real estate rental business was included in

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.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)