1. Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that "the State industrial complexes and local industrial complexes designated under the Industrial Sites and Development Act, and inducement areas under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act shall be exempted from the acquisition tax on the land that a person who intends to build a new factory in the relevant area acquires within 2 years from the date of the initial acquisition of the land for a factory within the relevant area, and a building for business (excluding the case of acquiring an existing building) acquired within 2 years from the date of the initial acquisition of the land for a factory and a building for business newly constructed after obtaining approval for use before the date of acquisition of the land for a factory to be acquired for the first time, and Article 128-

The purpose of the above provisions is to attract a factory in an industrial complex by exempting acquisition tax, etc. for buildings newly constructed before and after the date of acquisition on the land for factory in an industrial complex. In particular, "business buildings newly constructed with approval for use before the date of acquisition of land for factory in an industrial complex" is included in those subject to exemption, such as acquisition tax, etc. only after the date of acquisition of land for factory acquired within two years after the date of acquisition of land for factory in an industrial complex, and a building for business acquired before and after the date of acquisition of the land for factory, which is to solve unreasonable provisions of the former Local Tax Act before the amendment that was not exempted.

In light of the legislative intent of the above provisions and the developments leading up to the amendment, it should be newly constructed before the acquisition date after obtaining approval for use of the land in an industrial complex in order to be included in the "building included in the object of exemption from acquisition tax, etc." under the above amended Act. In the event that a building is newly constructed after acquiring the land which is not the original factory land in an industrial complex, the building does not constitute a building under the provision on exemption from acquisition tax, etc. even if the land is a factory in the future, since it is not a new building after obtaining approval for use as stipulated in the above exemption provision.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, comprehensively based on the evidence adopted in its judgment, found that the Plaintiff, the owner of the land in the above business complex, obtained the land in this case designated and publicly notified as an industrial base development zone pursuant to the former Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (repealed by the Industrial Sites and Development Act, Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 190), and newly constructed the building in this case on the ground after obtaining approval for use prior to the approval for the completion of the above business, and determined that the Plaintiff, the owner of the land in the above business complex, can acquire the factory site as substitute land upon completion of the business, and therefore, the building in this case constitutes a newly constructed building after obtaining approval for use prior to the date of acquisition.

3. However, the court below recognized that the plaintiff's acquisition of the land in this case does not constitute "acquisition of the land for factory" as stipulated in the exemption provision of the above acquisition tax, so so long as the land in this case is not the land for factory at the time of acquisition, the current status of the land already acquired is converted into the land for factory, and it does not newly acquire the land for factory. Therefore, since the building in this case constructed on the land in this case does not constitute "building under the exemption provision of the above acquisition tax and so it does not constitute "new building" after obtaining approval for use before the date of acquisition of the land for factory, the court below decided that the building in this case was a new building with the approval for use of the land before the date of acquisition under different opinions, and judged that the building in this case constitutes a new building with the approval for use of the above provision, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The part of the grounds for appeal pointing this out is with merit.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)