Whether land used for a supplementary business of a corporation is land for non-business use

If a corporation uses land for a supplementary project related to the purpose of its articles of incorporation, it cannot be deemed land for non-business use unless it is directly used for its proper purpose.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 84-3 subparagraph 3

December 22, 1981, 80Nu79 decided Dec. 22, 198 (Court Gazette 675, 225 pages)

Geum-ju Co., Ltd.

Head of Busan Metropolitan City/Dong

The imposition of acquisition tax by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 7, 1980 KRW 19,803,212 and the imposition of KRW 1,980,321 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) If evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 3-2, 2, and 2-1, 5, and 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 2-4 of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 3-2, and 2-5 of evidence Nos. 2 of evidence Nos. 2-1, 5, and 4 of evidence Nos. 1, 1978, which were acquired by the plaintiff company between Dec. 28, 1978 and Jan. 18, 1979, were released and constructed on July 31, 198, and it was possible to construct on the above site as of Mar. 26, 1980. In other words, the construction permission should be granted only after deducting the amount of tax already paid by the plaintiff company as the land for non-business use and deducting the amount of tax already paid from the amount of tax assessed on Apr. 1, 198, 297.

(2) The plaintiff acquired the above land on the 3th anniversary of its construction on the 19th anniversary of its acquisition, and then revoked the construction restriction on the 1st century. The plaintiff's construction permit was issued on the 1st 3th 2nd 1st 4th 2nd 7th 7th 1979. The plaintiff's 1st 3rd 1st 6th 1st 6th 1st 6th 6th 1st 6th 2nd 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 197 1st 1966th 6th 6th 197.

(3) Thus, as long as the Plaintiff used the instant land for the above purpose, it cannot be deemed as “land which is not directly used for its proper purpose (the purpose of business under the law or the articles of incorporation)” stipulated in Articles 84-3 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition imposing heavy tax on the land for non-business use is unlawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation of this claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition at the Defendant’s expense against the losing party.

Judges Kim Ho-young (Presiding Judge)