(a) "Justifiable reasons" under the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13033 of Jun. 29, 1990) that no speculative purpose exists when acquiring real estate of a corporation;

(b) In a case where a corporation whose business is to operate a gas station uses the part of the land exceeding the limit prescribed in Article 84-4 (3) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as the access road to the gas station and a vehicle substitute indictment, whether the said part of the land is “land for non-business use” and whether the said “justifiable cause” exists;

A. It cannot be deemed that there are justifiable grounds for acquiring land exceeding the limit stipulated in Article 84-4(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303, Jun. 29, 190) solely on the ground that the corporation purchased the land as a whole to manage the gas station, which is the main purpose business, and that there was no real estate speculation purpose at the time of acquisition.

B. Even if the land is provided for a corporation's unique business, if the land area exceeds the limit stipulated in Paragraph A above, it shall be deemed a corporation's non-business land. Therefore, the fact that a corporation which operates a gas station as its intended business uses the excessive part of the land as a concrete package for access road to the gas station and a substitute indictment shall not be deemed to be a non-business land or a case where "justifiable cause" stipulated in the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act exists.

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-4(3) proviso and 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 190)

East Petroleum Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant

Attorney Lee Sung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu3552 delivered on July 3, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the purchase and acquisition of all of the land of this case and its ground facilities which were used as gas stations at the time of the acquisition of oil, the court below acknowledged that the portion of the land exceeding seven times the floor area of the ground settlement in this case is non-business land under Article 112(2)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and that the taxation of this case was made by applying the heavy acquisition tax rate to the land (1) Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act, Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 190), Article 84-4(1) and (3)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 190). Since the land of this case which the corporation used for non-business purposes is not a legitimate ground for non-business purposes in principle, it can be viewed that the land of this case is not used for non-business purposes.

In light of the relevant statutes and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified, and there is no error in the statutory interpretation such as the theory of lawsuit.

Although the Plaintiff only purchased the instant land as a whole for the purpose of managing the gas station which is its main purpose business, and there was no real estate speculation purpose at the time of acquisition, such reason alone does not constitute justifiable grounds for the acquisition and possession of land exceeding the limit as stipulated in Article 84-4(3)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and even if the land is provided for a corporation’s unique business, if the land area exceeds the limit as stipulated in the above provision, it shall be deemed a corporation’s non-business land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s use of the excess area of the instant land as a concrete package for a gas station access road and a vehicle indictment cannot be said to be a non-business land or a “justifiable reason” as stipulated in the proviso of Article 84-4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Moreover, the Supreme Court precedents cited by the lower court cannot be seen as a different precedent to apply the instant case.

There is no reason for this issue.

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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)