[취득세부과처분취소][공1990.2.1(865),269]
Whether the land acquired by a corporation due to the prohibition of building permission falls under the "justifiable cause" under Article 84-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.
Since a corporation is prohibited from building permission in accordance with the Seoul Metropolitan Government's policy on the restriction on the area of a site for apartment construction after the acquisition of land on December 20, 1983 for apartment construction and until April 1, 1985, if it is impossible for the corporation to use the land for apartment construction which is its proper purpose business due to the prohibition of building permission by the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, then it constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason under Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) that the corporation
Article 112 of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028, Dec. 31, 1986)
Gyeong Gyeong Construction Corporation
The head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 88Gu8458 delivered on May 3, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's acquisition of the real estate of this case and not used directly for its proper purpose is justified, if the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the construction of apartment, and the construction permission is prohibited in accordance with the direction on the restriction of the site area of apartment construction of Seoul Metropolitan Government until April 1, 1985 after the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the construction of apartment, so it is impossible to use the land of this case for the construction of apartment, which is its proper purpose due to the prohibition of the defendant's construction permission. Therefore, the plaintiff's failure to directly use the land of this case for its proper purpose constitutes a case where there is a justifiable reason under Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986). Thus, the judgment of the court below is without merit.
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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)