(a) Permission and approval prescribed in subparagraph 14 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, to use an unauthorized building established on an empty land as an office and to obtain business registration, payment records including acquisition tax, and license and approval;

(b) Whether the provisions of subparagraph 14 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act are valid;

(c) Whether Article 78-3 subparagraph 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act applies to a personal entrepreneur who is not a corporation;

A. It cannot be deemed that there was permission, approval, designation, and decision under Article 78-3 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, which set forth the scope and limit of the land to be excluded from the vacant land solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s market wholesale business with the land was registered as a business operator under Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act or that there was a record of paying acquisition tax and defense tax on the land-free building without permission.

B. Article 78-3 subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act provides the basis for Article 142(1) subparag. 1(f) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and thus cannot be deemed null and void.

C. Determination as to whether a corporate entity is a public land or a corporate land for non-business use is different. Thus, in the case of a corporate entity, it cannot be deemed that the above provision is applied to the Plaintiff, a private business entity, on the ground that it does not constitute a public land for non-business use under Article 78-3 subparagraph 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and it does not constitute a violation of the principle of tax equity on the ground that the above provision is not applied.

(a)(b)Article 78ter subparag. 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, Article 142(1)1(f) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act “h”; (c) Article 78bis3(13) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, Article 18(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes;

Plaintiff’s Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff

Head of Busan Metropolitan City/Dong

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu60 delivered on December 15, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

With respect to the first and second points:

According to Article 142 (1) 1 (6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, as to public land, "land without ground settlement (excluding dry field, stone collection site, and borrow site) within an area prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs as of the date the property tax payment period commences, land without ground settlement (excluding dry field, stone collection site, and borrow site): Provided, That the following land shall not be deemed public land, and "h" shall be deemed land prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs, and accordingly, Article 78-3 (14) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act shall be one of the above "land prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs" excluded from public land for specific purpose, and it shall not be deemed that the above land was used for the same purpose as the above "land without permission, approval, designation, and determination by the administrative agency for use for specific purpose for 1 or more years," and the above provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act shall not be deemed as invalid for the purpose of the above land without permission, and it shall not be deemed as the above land for public land.

With respect to the third point:

The determination of whether a building is public or private and the determination of whether a building is a non-business land of a juristic person is different. Thus, in the case of a juristic person, it shall not be regarded as public land for the land owned by a juristic person excluded from non-business use pursuant to subparagraph 13 of Article 78-3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, and it shall not be deemed that the above provision is applied even to the case of an individual entrepreneur like the plaintiff, and it shall not be deemed to be in violation of the principle of tax equity on the ground that the above provision is not applied. It shall not

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 O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)