[종합소득세등부과처분취소][공2001.1.15.(122),195]
[1] The meaning of the provision and the point of application that "the ownership of forests and fields within the water-source protection area under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act after June 1, 1990 and the acquisition and ownership of them due to corporate merger after the inheritance of forests and fields within the water-source protection area under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act" as to the land subject to the aggregate land tax subject to the separate taxation
[2] The case holding that where a corporation, which had been owned before May 31, 1990, acquired and owned forest land within a water-source protection area by combining it after June 1, 1990, such forest land shall not be included in the disposition subject to separate taxation on the ground that it cannot be interpreted extensively or analogically interpreted to include "in case where the forest land is owned after inheritance after June 1, 1990" in the main sentence of Article 194-15 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, "in case where the forest land concerned is owned after June 1, 1990, it is acquired and owned after June 1, 1990"
[1] Article 194-15 (2) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 199) provides that "the forest land within a water-source protection area under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act as the land subject to separate taxation of aggregate land tax" shall be limited to the forest land under paragraph (2) 6 of the former part of paragraph (5) of the same Article which has been owned before May 31, 1990 (including the case of owning the forest concerned after inheritance thereof after June 1, 1990). The provisions of the main sentence of paragraph (5) of the same Article provide that "the forest land tax shall be treated as the forest land tax before or after the acquisition of the forest concerned after the inheritance thereof after June 1, 1999, and the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 16673 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act shall be applied to the forest land tax already owned or owned after the acquisition of the forest under paragraph (16) 16) of the Addenda of this Decree.
[2] The case holding that the forest land shall not be included in the object of separate taxation on the ground that it cannot be expanded or analogically interpreted that the forest land in question is owned by acquiring it after June 1, 1990, or because it cannot be interpreted or analogically interpreted that the forest land in question is included in the object of separate taxation on the ground that it is not included in the object of separate taxation where it is owned after June 1, 1990, in case where the forest land in question is owned by inheritance after the inheritance after June 1, 1990, of Article 194-15 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 199)
[1] Article 234-15 (2) 4 of the Local Tax Act, Article 194-15 (2) 6 and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 1999), Article 194-15 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 1999), Article 234-15 (1) of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 199) / [2] Article 234-15 (2) 4 of the Local Tax Act, Article 194-15 (2) 6 and (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 199), Article 19-13 (1) of the Addenda (amended by Presidential Decree)
Samsung C&T Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Head of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (Attorney Park Jong-ok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Busan High Court Decision 2000Nu635 delivered on June 9, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The provisions of Article 234-15 (4) and the proviso of paragraph (2) 4 of the Local Tax Act stipulate "the value of forests and fields prescribed by the Presidential Decree, which are necessary for the protection and fosterage of forests" as one of the separate tax bases of aggregate land tax. The Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1498 of Apr. 27, 1996, which was amended by the Presidential Decree No. 16673 of Dec. 31, 199) provides that "the forests and fields within water-source protection areas under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act are one of those prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in Article 194-15 (2) 6 of this Decree, and the provisions of paragraph (5) 6 of the same Article provide that "the forests and fields under the former part of subparagraph 1 of the same Article, which are owned by a corporation after 0.6 years before and after 190, have been amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1963, Jan. 16, 1996.
In the same purport, even if the plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of Samsung Construction Co., Ltd. by absorbing the land of this case, which was owned before May 31, 1990, within the water-source protection area, on or after January 27, 1996, the court below held that in the aggregate land tax of 1996, 197, and 198, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have owned the land of this case before May 31, 1990, and that inasmuch as the merger of corporations and the inheritance of natural persons differ from the subject or cause of the merger of corporations, it cannot be interpreted that "the case where the plaintiff owns the forest after inheritance of the forest concerned after June 1, 1990," including "the case where the forest concerned is owned after the acquisition of the forest concerned after June 1, 199," it cannot be interpreted or interpreted to include "the case where the forest concerned is owned due to corporate merger after the merger" as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)