School Foundation Sung Pung University (Attorney Kim Ho-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Yeongdeungpo-gu

September 1, 2004

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the Defendant’s claim for revocation of each imposition of KRW 6,083,370, urban planning tax amount of KRW 2,561,120, local education tax amount of KRW 1,216,670, and special rural development tax amount of KRW 431,820, which was imposed by the Plaintiff on October 29, 2003 against the Plaintiff is dismissed.

1. The defendant's property tax, 1,020, 34, 1,00, 1,000, 1,000 won for 198, 204, 1,000, 2,000 won for 194, 2,000 won for 2,00 won for 2,00 won for 2,00 won for 3,00,00 won for 3,00 won for local education tax, 4,00, 3,00,00 for 3,00,00, 4,000 for 3,00,00,00 for local education tax, 4, 3,00,00, 1,000 won for 4, 3,06, 3,04, 1,000 won for local education tax, 1,79, 4,000 won for local education tax, 5,636, 97, 2010

B. The Defendant’s property tax amounting to KRW 2,189,480, urban planning tax amounting to KRW 1,459,650, common facilities tax amounting to KRW 1,144,720, and local education tax amounting to KRW 437,890, which was paid by the Plaintiff on July 2, 2003

Revocation of each disposition of imposition

2. 8 minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

The disposition of imposition of KRW 6,083,370, urban planning tax amount 2,561,120, local education tax amount of KRW 1,216,670, and special rural development tax amount of KRW 431,820, which was imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on October 29, 2003 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and new witness testimony.

A. The Plaintiff, a school juristic person established for the purpose of higher education, etc., operates a natural science campus on the 300 square meters above the ground of Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, 300, and each of the above-mentioned enterprises constructed a school center around 1981; a library around 1983; a secondary engineering center around 1994; a welfare center (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) around 1997; and a joint operation and lease agreement was concluded with 22 enterprises, such as Samsung C&T Co., Ltd.; and a 1,758 square meters among the above-mentioned student hall buildings; a 407 square meters among the above-mentioned student hall buildings; a total of 4,286.21 square meters among the buildings of the welfare center buildings; and a combination of 1,962 square meters among the buildings of the 2 engineering center buildings; and each of the above enterprises leases them from a restaurant, a store, a bank room, a convenience facility, a photo, a ra, etc.

B. Accordingly, the defendant imposed each property tax and aggregate land tax on the plaintiff on the ground that the main part of the building of this case among the buildings of this case is used for a profit-making business, not for educational business, and is not subject to non-taxation, as set forth in paragraph 2(a) of the disposition on June 12, 2003, as set forth in paragraph 2(b) of the disposition on July 2, 2003 (the disposition on June 12, 2003 and the disposition on July 2, 2003 are added together) and on October 29, 2003 as set forth in paragraph 1 of the disposition on October 29, 2003 (the disposition on October 29, 2003 below).

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the claim for revocation of the disposition on October 29, 2003 among the lawsuit of this case

The administrative litigation against the disposition of imposing local taxes, including the unit of examination and aggregate land tax, shall be filed within 90 days from the date on which the pertinent disposition is known (in the case of an objection or a request for examination, the period from the date on which the original copy of the written decision on the objection or the request for examination was served). However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case only after the lapse of 90 days from the time when the Defendant was served a service of the disposition of imposing the aggregate land tax as stated in Paragraph (1) of the disposition on October 29, 2003.

Therefore, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful, since it was filed with the time limit for filing the lawsuit.

3. Determination on the lawfulness of each of the dispositions of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key part of the issue is that the disposition of this case imposing property tax and aggregate land tax, etc. on the ground that the plaintiff was used for profit-making business other than the educational business, even though it is a welfare facility for the students and the teaching staff who are indispensable in the execution of the educational business, which is exempt from taxation pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 184 and subparagraph 2 of Article 234-12

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Acts and subordinate statutes.

C. Determination

(1) The Local Tax Act provides that property tax, aggregate land tax, common facilities tax, local education tax, etc. shall not be imposed, in principle, on real estate to be used by a nonprofit business operator for higher education, etc.; Provided, That where the above real estate is used for profit-making business under Article 1 (Specialized Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5581 of Dec. 28, 1998), the above tax shall be imposed. Accordingly, in this case, the issue is whether the pertinent portion is being used for the educational business

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings with respect to the evidence Nos. 6 to 12, evidence Nos. 14 to 17, evidence No. 14 to 2, and testimony of new witnesses, the building of this case is located within the campus and there are little cases where neighboring residents use the controversial part, and it is mainly used by students and teaching staff. The type of business operated in the controversial part is the type of business operated by the student and teaching staff, cafeteria, post office, bank, book store, language store, book store, sound recording room, sound recording room, travel room, travel room, planning room (production of teaching materials and teaching materials for events), it is composed of the education and welfare facilities of all the students and teaching staff members to meet the needs of the students and teaching staff members, automobile insurance agency, spawd and copy room, etc., and it is recognized that the education and welfare facilities of the students are used for the purpose of the entrusted management and supervision of the education and welfare facilities of the students, and it is not an issue of the education and welfare facilities for the students.

(3) Therefore, each disposition of this case imposing property tax, aggregate land tax, etc. on the part of the issue which is non-taxable after being used for educational business conducted by the plaintiff is illegal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of this case on October 29, 2003 among the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful. The plaintiff's claim seeking revocation of each disposition of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Cho Young-gu (Presiding Judge)