Justifiable reasons for the prohibition or restriction of construction and the non-use of the land pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes.

If a corporation is unable to directly use land for its original purpose (the purpose of business in the Act, the statute, or the articles of incorporation) due to the prohibition or restriction of construction under the Urban Planning and the Acts and subordinate statutes related to construction, even if it had already been subject to construction prohibition or restriction at the time of acquiring the land, and it had already been acquired with the knowledge of the contents of the prohibition or restriction, it shall be deemed that

Article 142 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Nu111 Decided August 23, 197, Supreme Court Decision 78Nu442 Decided February 13, 1979

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Hun-Ga40 delivered on September 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu57 delivered on November 9, 1981

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on macrofics, that the Plaintiff Company purchased 4,255 square meters of land ( Address 1 omitted) on April 22, 1976 as a corporation established to operate domestic and foreign trade business, military supply business, textile industry, real estate rental business, clothes, and Meetry manufacture and sale business, furniture manufacture and sale business, wooden boxes sale business, and all projects incidental thereto, and that the Plaintiff purchased 146 square meters of land on December 4, 1976, and that each of the instant land was legitimate after the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant land on the ground that it had no proper reasons to recognize that the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant land was for non-business purposes at the time of the construction of each of the instant land, since it was publicly announced and pointed out as a development restriction zone, and thereafter, the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant land on the ground that the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant land was no more than the Plaintiff’s new construction or new construction of each of each of the instant land.

However, Article 18 (1) 1 Item 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 188 (3) of the same Act apply property tax rate to non-business land of a corporation, which is higher than that of general land. The classification and limit of non-business land shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 Item 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981) and Article 142 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 1063 of Dec. 31, 1981) provides that "non-business land of a corporation means land which is not used directly by a corporation for its own purpose (the purpose of business under the law or the articles of incorporation of a corporation) as of the commencement date of property tax without justifiable reasons. Thus, in light of the above facts acknowledged by the court below, since it is evident that the plaintiff's use of each land of this case was not directly used for the corporation's original purpose.

Even though the court below acknowledged that the use of land for its own purpose is subject to the prohibition or restriction of construction under the urban planning and construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, it was prior to the acquisition of such restriction, and it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for non-use of land for non-business purpose on the ground that the plaintiff acquired it with knowledge, there is a misapprehension of the legal principle, and therefore there is a ground for appeal.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju