Where a corporation uses its own buildings for other than its proper purpose, whether the land annexed to such corporation is excluded from non-business land

In full view of the purport of Article 142 (1) 1 (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981) and Article 75-2 (6) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance No. 369 of Mar. 25, 1982), if a corporation directly uses more than half of a building, the part not exceeding seven times the building area as land annexed to the building shall be excluded from non-business land of the corporation, regardless of whether it is directly used for the corporation's own purpose, regardless of whether it is directly used for the corporation's own purpose. Thus, if the area of the land of this case, which is the land annexed to the building used by the Plaintiff bank as the place where it keeps its house such as books, etc., does not exceed seven times the building area, the land of this case shall be excluded from non-business land

Article 188 (1) 1 (3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 142 (1) 1 (7) (e) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981), Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 369 of Mar. 25, 1982) (amended by Ordinance No. 369 of the Ministry of Home Affairs)

Attorney Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

The head of Jung-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu215 delivered on January 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff used 10 times the above 7th anniversary of the building site of this case (237) and 10th of the above 7th of the building site of this case to be owned by the 15th of the above 7th of the building and to be directly used by the 19th of the above 7th of the building site of this case (the 1st of the above 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 5th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 1st of the 2th of the 3th of the 1st of the building.

2. In light of records, we affirm the above fact that the judgment of the court below has previously removed the main building used as the Plaintiff’s branch office as the Plaintiff’s branch office, and it was planned to temporarily move a new building for the branch office business to another branch office, and used it temporarily as a place in which the house, such as book, etc. is kept until the removal of the building, and it cannot be said that the court below erred in the trial process or evidence preparation.

In addition, the judgment of the court below that concluded the land of this case as land for non-business use in the same purport is just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of misunderstanding legal principles or misunderstanding of reasoning or omission of judgment, such as theory of lawsuit, and it is not appropriate for the case of the party members at the time of theory of lawsuit differently from the case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)