Whether Article 14 of the Addenda to the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act ( December 31, 1990) or Article 19 (2) of the Addenda to the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Act ( December 27, 1991) is subject to Article 88-2 of the same Act even in cases where capital gains tax is fully exempted.

Rule of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of December 31, 1993) (amended by Act No. 4666 of December 31, 1990).

31. Article 14 of this Act or Article 19(2) of the Addenda of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1991. Dec. 27, 1991) provides for the application of the reduction or exemption in cases falling under certain requirements among the cases where reduction or exemption is made pursuant to Article 57(1) of the same Act in light of the content, method, system, etc. of such reduction or exemption. In fundamentalally, the reduction or exemption under Article 57(1) of the same Act, which provides for the reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for land, etc. used for public business, is merely a form of reduction or exemption under Article 57(1) of the same Act, and does not provide for a separate provision on the exemption of capital gains tax, etc., so insofar as the exemption under Article 57 of the same Act is included in the case of reduction or exemption under Article 14 of the Addenda of the same Act or Article 19(2) of the Addenda after the amendment, it shall also be deemed that the comprehensive reduction or exemption limit of capital gains tax.

Article 57(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 88-2 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 14 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 19(2) of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4667 of Dec. 27, 1991

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu18761 delivered on April 15, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1525) 94Nu7331 delivered on February 28, 1995

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu9926 delivered on January 25, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 14 of the Addenda of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; Act No. 4451, Dec. 27, 1991; hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) or Article 19(2) of the Addenda of the Act as amended by Act No. 4451, Dec. 27, 1991 provides for the applicable cases of reduction and exemption under Article 57(1) of the Act where certain conditions are met, and fundamentally, reduction and exemption under Article 57(1) of the Act, which provides for reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on land for public activities, etc., and it does not constitute grounds for exemption under Article 57(1) of the Act, and it cannot be deemed that the total amount of reduction and exemption under Article 97(1) of the Addenda of the Act exceeds the scope of capital gains tax exemption under Article 97(1) of the Addenda of the Act.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if a part of the land in this case was used as a de facto parking lot, in light of the size of the above ground building, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff used the part of the land exceeding five times the floor area of the building as a de facto parking lot. In light of the records, such judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the exercise of a right to explanation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the exercise of a right to explanation, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. As seen above, the ground of appeal on this issue cannot be seen as an unlawful ground that affected

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)