(b) Whether the legal principle under Paragraph (a) applies to cases where a corporation diverts land acquired for the purpose of preserving bonds for the purpose other than that of acquisition tax during a grace period for heavy taxation.

(c) A case affirming the judgment below that where land and buildings were not used for business due to a special contract for repurchase during the grace period, there cannot be justifiable grounds under Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

B. The legal principle under Paragraph (a) applies to a case where a corporation diverts a land acquired for the purpose of preserving a claim for another purpose, such as converting it into a business, during the grace period for the acquisition tax, and, in this case, a non-business land is not used for the original purpose of a corporation within a period of one year counting from the date of initial acquisition (if the land was converted for another purpose after one year from the date of initial acquisition, it will be a non-business land at the time of such conversion), and a grace period of one year from the date of initial

C. The case affirming the judgment below holding that the special agreement for repurchase for a one-year period between a corporation and a seller of land was merely a voluntary agreement, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no justifiable reason under Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act for the reason that the land and buildings were not used for business purposes during the period of repurchase.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In the case of land acquired by a corporation for the purpose of preserving bonds under Article 84-4 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, it shall not be deemed land for non-business use unless the grace period for the heavy acquisition tax under the proviso of the same subparagraph expires. However, in the case where the corporation does not sell it within the grace period for the heavy acquisition tax and holds it as it is, the above provision shall not apply, as the principle of paragraph (1) of the same Article is applied, and it shall be land for non-business use at the same time as the above grace period expires, and it shall not be required that the corporation should not use it directly for its unique business within one year period after the expiration of the grace period for the heavy acquisition tax (see Supreme Court Decision 89Nu7450 delivered on May 8, 190).

Furthermore, such a legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a corporation’s land acquired for the purpose of preserving bonds is converted to a business for another purpose during the grace period for acquisition tax, and thus, it is not to start a grace period of one year from the date of initial acquisition to the date of initial acquisition if it is not used for the corporation’s own purpose within one year period counting from the date of initial acquisition (if it is converted to another purpose after one year from the date of initial acquisition, it will be a non-business land at the time of its conversion).

Therefore, as determined by the court below, if the plaintiff determined to divert the land of this case acquired by the plaintiff for the purpose of mortgage preservation only for two years or more, and owned it as it is after the grace period for heavy acquisition tax, the land of this case shall be deemed to fall under non-business land. Therefore, although the court below's decision to the same purport is insufficient, it is justified in its conclusion, and there is no error of law of interpretation and application which affected the conclusion of the judgment, as argued in the judgment below, and there is no reason to discuss.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below held that since the special agreement for repurchase between the plaintiff and the seller of the land of this case was merely a voluntary agreement for repurchase and did not use the land and buildings of this case for business purposes during the repurchase period, there is no justifiable reason under Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the time when the plaintiff received the decision for provisional disposition against the lessee, etc. of the building of this case against the lessee, etc. of the building of this case after the lapse of one year from the date of acquiring the land of this case, the tenant of the building of this case's refusal of voluntary surrender shall not be a justifiable reason for not being used for business purposes. In light of the contents and records of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above decision of the court below is justified.

The appeal argues that the plaintiff's failure to use the land and buildings of this case for business purposes during the redemption period should be taken into account on the ground that there exists a justifiable reason under Article 84-4 (4) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. However, as seen in the first ground for appeal, as long as the plaintiff did not sell the land of this case within the grace period for acquisition tax heavy taxation, the above provision is not applicable, and it is not acceptable.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)