[1] The scope of "real estate that is not used directly for the corporation's unique business," which is subject to the collection of acquisition tax, heavy taxation and registration tax, and the scope of "the unique business of the corporation"

[2] Criteria for determining whether the "real estate not used directly for the relevant business type" under Article 101 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which is subject to heavy taxation of registration tax

[3] The meaning of "establishment, management and operation of a complex and public facilities, which are business affairs of a business cooperative under Article 67-5 (1) 1 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, and "maintenance and management of a market" under Article 7 (4) 7 of the former Do and Retail Promotion Act, and the purport of Article 31 (2) of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act

[4] Whether a business cooperative under the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, regardless of its members, can be deemed as a business management of its own business that operates its own profit-making business (negative)

[5] The case holding that the construction section sales business cooperative established under the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act acquired the land for business, newly constructed a building on the ground and constructed a complex for construction section sales, and subsequent permission for market establishment under the former Do and Retail Business Promotion Act, it constitutes a case where part of the construction section sales shop and buildings are not used directly for its unique business or business category, and then, after obtaining the permission for market establishment under the former Do and Retail Business Promotion Act

[1] The scope of "real estate that is not used directly for the corporation's unique business, which is the object of the additional collection of acquisition tax, heavy taxation, and the additional collection of registration tax, is determined according to whether the scope of "the unique business of the corporation" is "the business that is individually defined by the laws and regulations, the business that is defined as the object business on the corporate register, and the business that is authorized and permitted by the administrative agency," which are defined as the unique business of the corporation under Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No.

[2] Whether the "real estate not directly used for the pertinent type of business" is subject to heavy taxation under Article 101 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489 of Oct. 1, 1997), shall be determined by considering the purpose of acquisition of the pertinent real estate, actual use relationship, and relation with the performance of its unique duties.

[3] Article 67-5 (1) 1 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act refers to "the construction, management, and operation of a complex and public facilities, which are prescribed as one of the business affairs of a business cooperative, and "the maintenance and management of a market" under Article 7 (4) 7 of the former Wholesale and Retail Business Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4889, Jan. 5, 1995) refers to "the construction of a complex, a joint project, and a facility for supporting business, and the maintenance and improvement thereof for a cooperative and its members (markets and shop occupants)" and Article 31 (2) of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act does not purport to allow a person other than the cooperative members to use the business within the scope of business or to directly operate the business affairs of the cooperative, on the premise that the cooperative directly operates the business within its business affairs."

[4] If an industrial cooperative runs a profit-making business regardless of its members, it is against the provisions of Article 7 (1) 1 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act prohibiting a profit-making business, and it shall not be deemed that it runs a business belonging to its unique duties.

[5] The case holding that it constitutes a case where a construction section sales business cooperative established under the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act acquired a business land, newly constructed a building on the ground and constructed a complex for construction section sales, and obtained a market establishment permit under the former Do and Retail Business Promotion Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 1995), and it is not used directly for its unique duties or business category, where part of the construction section sales shop and buildings are leased to non-members or used without any delay

[1] Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15211 of Dec. 31, 1996) / [2] Article 101 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489 of Oct. 1, 1997) / [3] Articles 31 (2) and 67-5 (1) 1 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act, Article 7 (4) 7 of the former Do and Retail Business Promotion Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4889 of Jan. 5, 1995) / [4] Article 7 (1) 1 of the former Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15211 of Dec. 31, 1996); Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15481 of Dec. 15, 197, 197) of the former Act)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu478 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1497) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 93Nu1513 delivered on November 23, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 219), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7851 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 343) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu10630 delivered on May 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 1744), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu7905 delivered on April 28, 198 (Gong198Sang, 1546), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu79089 delivered on May 29, 198 (Gong1998Sang, 1546)

Incheon Forestry Section Sales Cooperatives (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Dong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu7123 delivered on February 3, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's business was not limited to 7 percent of the total amount of land used by the members of the cooperative or its remaining business to be owned by the members of the cooperative or its remaining 7 percent of the total amount of land used by the members of the cooperative or its remaining business to be owned by the members of the cooperative or its remaining 7 percent of the total amount of land used by the cooperative or its remaining business to be owned by the members of the cooperative or to promote the sound development of the association's corporate register and to promote the balanced development of the national economy by carrying out cooperation projects. The plaintiff purchased the land of this case for the purpose of developing the cooperative or its remaining business, and registered the ownership of the land of this case for the purpose of using the land of this case to be owned by the members of the cooperative or its remaining 7 percent of the total amount of land used by the cooperative or its remaining business to be owned by the members of the cooperative or its remaining 9 percent of the total amount of land used by the cooperative or its remaining business to be owned by the members of the cooperative or its remaining business.

2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal

The scope of "real estate that is not used directly for the corporation's unique business subject to the collection, heavy taxation, and registration tax of the acquisition tax of this case" is determined according to whether the scope of "real estate that is not used directly for the corporation's unique business" under Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15211 of Dec. 31, 1996), which is defined as the corporation's unique business, belongs to "the business that is individually prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes, the business that is designated as the purpose business on corporate register, and the business that is authorized or permitted by the administrative agency". The plaintiff's business excluded from the heavy registration tax of this case is "the wholesale business that has been permitted to be established under the provisions of the Do and Retail Trade Promotion Act" under Article 101 (1) 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15489 of Oct. 1, 197).

In addition, Article 67-5 (1) 1 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act provides that "the creation, management, and operation of a complex and public facilities, and the operation of a market for the business of a market founder" among the business of a business cooperative under Article 67-5 (1) 1 of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act and "the maintenance and management of a market" under Article 7 (4) 7 of the former Do and Retail Trade Promotion Act mean "the maintenance and operation of a market for the business of a cooperative and its members (markets) by creating facilities for joint business and business support, and maintaining and improving them for the business of a cooperative and its members (markets and shop occupants)." Article 31 (2) of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act does not purport to allow a cooperative to use its business to a person other than its members within the scope of 20% of the total amount of its members' use, or allow a cooperative to directly operate its own business that is not related to the business of a cooperative regardless of its members, as it violates Article 7 (1) 97 (1) 97) of the Small and Medium Enterprise Cooperatives Act.

However, according to the facts established by the court below, it is difficult to view it as belonging to the scope of "the creation, management, and operation of complex and common facilities" and "maintenance and management of the market", and it is difficult to view it as belonging to the plaintiff's business purpose and the plaintiff's business purpose, the acquisition and lease purpose of the land and building of this case, actual use relation, unique business execution relation, etc., if the plaintiff leases part of the land and building of this case to non-members with the permission of market establishment under the former Do and Retail Trade Promotion Act, which actually owns land and building of this case, and some of them are leased to non-members and used as expenses, etc. for the association itself, and the remainder is not used for the association itself. In light of the above legal principles, it is obvious that the real estate rental business is not included in the above plaintiff's unique business or type of business, and it is not directly used for the business of this case or the business of small and medium enterprise for profit-making purposes, and it is not directly used by the plaintiff.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the plaintiff's land and buildings in this case were directly used for its own business or business. It erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of additional collection and heavy taxation of acquisition tax and registration tax, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. 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 Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)