[1] The meaning of "justifiable cause" under the Local Tax Act as a ground for exemption from acquisition tax or exemption from heavy taxation

[2] The case holding that the sale of a factory building on the land for factory shall not constitute a justifiable ground under paragraph (1)

[1] Article 110-3 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) concerning exemption from acquisition tax, and "justifiable cause" under Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) concerning the scope of non-business land of a corporation subject to exemption from acquisition tax refers to cases where a cause not using the acquired land is due to external reasons, such as prohibition or restriction of use by an administrative agency or internal efforts to use the land for its unique duties, or where it is impossible to use it for its unique duties due to other objective reasons, and it does not include cases where a purchaser of land waives his/her own financial standing or profit-making problems, etc.

[2] The case holding that if a corporation whose business purpose is to manufacture and sell the above land and building on January 15, 1994, which had been built on August 21, 1993 by modifying a plan to construct a aluminium refining factory after acquiring the land on August 21, 1993, added aluminium refining and incidental business for the business purpose on August 31, 1993, and completed the construction on September 11, 1993 and completed the construction on January 11, 1994, 40 days after completion of the construction on January 15, 1994, if it sells the above land and building with its unique business for non-business purpose to another company, the above land constitutes the land's unique business from the date of completion of the construction on January 15, 1994 without any justifiable reason under Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994) and it does not constitute the above land for non-business use within 14.

[1] Article 110-3 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Nu1124 delivered on October 13, 1989 (Gong1989, 1698) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1773 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2311) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu15257 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 431 delivered on March 12, 1996) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu10610 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong195, 1931)

Han Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

The head of Ulsan-si in Ulsan-si

Busan High Court Decision 95Gu3831 delivered on October 11, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 10-3 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) provides that the following property shall be exempted from acquisition tax; subparagraph 1 provides that "the State industrial complex and local industrial complex designated under the Industrial Sites and Development Act and the inducement area under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act shall be the first acquired land within the relevant area and the business land and buildings of the relevant factory (excluding the acquisition of existing buildings) acquired within 2 years from the date of acquisition of the first acquired land for factory and new construction after obtaining approval for use within 2 years from the date of acquisition of the first acquired land for factory: Provided, That the exempted acquisition tax shall be collected additionally if the land is not used directly for factory or sold within 2 years from the date of initial acquisition of the land for factory without justifiable reasons, and the land is not used directly for factory or within 9 years from the date of imposition of 198-4 (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481 of Dec. 31, 199).

As determined by the court below, since the plaintiff who is a corporation whose business purpose is to manufacture and sell the arche wall, etc. is the national industrial complex designated by the Industrial Sites and Development Act in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, which is a national industrial complex designated by the Industrial Sites and Development Act, changed a plan to construct a arche factory after acquiring 5,235 square meters of the land of this case on August 21, 1993, and added a aluminium refining and incidental business to the business purpose on August 31, 1993, and completed a factory construction on September 11, 1994, and completed it on January 15, 1994, and sold the land of this case and a factory building to the non-party company within 40,000 won from the date of completion of the construction due to the financial shortage, the plaintiff's sale of the land of this case to the non-party company within 2 years from the date of sale without justifiable grounds as well as the ground for appeal under Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act.

The judgment of the court below that made the above conclusion is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are inappropriate to invoke the case differently from this case.

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)