[1] The scope of deemed acquisition due to a land category change following the formation of golf course

[2] The case holding that the purchase and planting of the standing timber are deemed subject to deemed acquisition due to the fact that it cannot be deemed that the so-called scenic method was taken on the standing timber planted in the golf course

[3] Requirements to determine whether a natural landscape area located within a golf course falls under the subject of acquisition tax, among acquisition tax

[1] According to Articles 105(5), 112(2), and 112-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), Articles 73(8), 82, and 84-3(1)1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994), the period of deemed acquisition following a change of land category due to a change of land category due to a golf course construction shall be deemed as forest damage (such as cutting of trees), alteration of form and quality (such as cutting, raising of land, cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting, cutting, etc.), diversion of farmland, etc., as well as the cost of creating a golf course due to the completion of all construction works for utility as well as the cost of creating a golf course due to the change of land category and land category due to the change of seed type, etc., and the cost of planting land shall be applied to the tax base.

[2] The case holding that the purchase and planting of the standing timber are deemed subject to deemed acquisition in accordance with the formation of a golf course on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the so-called scenic method was taken on the standing timber planted in the golf course

[3] Article 84-3 (1) 1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) defines a golf course subject to the imposition of acquisition tax as all land and buildings subject to registration under Article 4 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act as real estate for membership golf course, and Article 20 (4) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14284 of Jun. 17, 1994) and Article 11 of the Addenda of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that "land used for the operation, maintenance and management of a golf course (including natural conditions) and land used for the maintenance and management of a golf course" as one subject to registration, so the land price of a golf course in natural condition is subject to registration and its operation and management should be determined as acquisition tax.

[1] Articles 105(5), 111(3), 112(2), and 112-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 73(8), 82, and 84-3(1)1-2 (see current Article 112(2)2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481, Dec. 31, 1994); Article 105(5), 111(3), 12(2), and 112-4(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14794, Dec. 22, 1994); Article 19-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2194, Dec. 13, 199>

[1] Supreme Court Decision 89Nu5638 delivered on July 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 1740) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu18818 delivered on June 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2044) Supreme Court Decision 96Nu12634 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2024), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu245 delivered on September 3, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2116)

Lee Young-deok (former Trade Name: Lee Yang-sung, Inc., Ltd., Ltd.) (Law Firm Shinyang, Attorneys Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Leecheon-si (Law Firm Taesung, Attorneys Yoon Sang-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu1778 delivered on August 12, 1999

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

A. On the first ground for appeal

According to Articles 105(5), 112(2), and 112-2(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same), Articles 73(8), 82, and 84-3(1)1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481, Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply), the time of deemed acquisition due to a change of land category following the formation of golf courses shall be deemed that the time of deemed acquisition due to a change of land category (such as cutting of trees), alteration of the form and quality of forests (such as cutting, raising earth, etc.), diversion of farmland, etc. (hereinafter the same shall apply), and all construction works for golf courses to be used for utility, such as seeding and planting, planting, landscaping, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da16989, supra.).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the purchase of standing timber and planting costs of this case are expenses for the construction of golf courses for the acquisition of land for golf courses, and that the heavy tax rate is applied not only to the tax base for deemed acquisition due to land category change, but also to the tax base for deemed acquisition due to heavy tax rate is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

In addition, according to the records, the measures alleged by the plaintiff as to the standing timber of this case are merely for the management of trees for the landscaping of the land for golf course, and cannot be deemed to have taken the so-called method of disclosing the ownership of the standing timber of this case as an independent object separately from the land which is the ground. Thus, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the purchase and planting costs of the standing timber of this case are not deemed to be subject to deemed acquisition due to the formation of golf course, since the ownership of the standing timber of this case was publicly announced separately from the land which is the ground by a nominal method

The grounds of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

B. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the construction cost of the road and parking lot in this case, sports facility fee 21,906,773 won, 62,251,670 won out of the opening cost of the golf course is the expense for the construction of the golf course, which is subject to heavy acquisition, and the amount equivalent to 202,081,993 won such as carpets in this case is corresponding to the building for the golf course in this case and is subject to heavy acquisition, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the subject of acquisition tax.

The ground of appeal disputing this issue is rejected.

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

Article 84-3 (1) 1-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act defines the term "any land and buildings subject to registration under Article 4 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act as real estate for membership golf courses" and Article 20 (4) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Installation and Utilization of Sports Facilities Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14284 of Jun. 17, 1994) and Article 11 of the Addenda provide that "land used for the operation, maintenance and management of golf courses (including natural conditions) and land used for the maintenance and management of golf courses" as one of the registration of golf courses. Thus, the natural landscape area located within golf courses should be referred to as "land subject to registration", which is a place of landscape that is located within the golf courses and is used for the operation, maintenance and management of golf courses.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the remaining area of this case, which is natural, is 283,396 square meters, is not used in the operation, maintenance, and management of golf courses, and thus does not fall under the subject of heavy acquisition tax, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to landscaping subject to heavy acquisition tax.

The grounds of appeal disputing this issue are rejected.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)