(a) Whether a credit union falls under a non-profit corporation for the public interest under subparagraph 3 of Article 84-3 and Article 142 (1) 1-7 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979);

(b) Where the exempted acquisition tax under Article 10 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481 of Dec. 31, 1981) may be collected additionally;

A. Non-profit corporations established under the Civil Act and other special Acts for the purpose of public interest under Article 84-3 subparagraph 3 and Article 142 (1) subparagraph 1 subparagraph 7 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979) refer to non-profit corporations established under the Civil Act and other special Acts for the purpose of promoting the welfare of many and unspecified persons in society, and corporations with the direct purpose of promoting their own interests or protecting their rights only for specific classes, status or persons with specific qualifications or specific types of business, shall not be included in this case. Thus, credit unions organized by specific persons in mutual ties relation for the purpose of promoting their common interest cannot be deemed non-profit corporations for the purpose of public interest

B. In full view of the provisions of Article 10(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 84-3 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979) and Article 75-2 subparag. 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 322, Jun. 10, 1980) of the same Act, if a corporation acquires a building and newly constructs a building on the land and fails to directly use one half or more of the total area of the building for the original purpose within one year from the date of acquisition of the building without any justifiable reason, it is reasonable to collect additionally the acquisition tax exempted under the latter part of Article 10(1) of the same Act.

Article 84-3 subparagraph 3 and Article 142 (1) 1 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Local Tax Act, Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, Article 10 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act

Sayang Credit Union

Drillea Gun

Gwangju High Court Decision 85Gu60 delivered on November 6, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The purport of Article 112-2 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3174, Dec. 28, 1979) and Article 112-2 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 3174, Dec. 28, 1979) which was enforced at the time of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the pertinent land is that “if the pertinent land becomes a non-business land of a corporation within two years after its acquisition, acquisition tax shall be additionally collected by applying the tax rate under the provisions of Article 112(2).” Thus, acquisition tax cannot be levied after two years have elapsed since the date of its acquisition, since the disposition to impose acquisition tax on the pertinent land was made after the lapse of two years from the date of its acquisition. It cannot be

With respect to the second ground:

According to Article 84-3 subparag. 3 and Article 142(1)1 subparag. 7(b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 1063 on December 31, 1981 and enforced January 1, 1982, the land for profit-making business operated by a nonprofit corporation to raise expenses necessary for performing its own business shall not be deemed land for non-business use of the corporation. However, this provision applies to the land acquired as of March 17, 1981 under Article 2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, since the land for profit-making business operated by the nonprofit corporation to raise expenses necessary for performing its own business, it shall not be applicable to the acquisition of the land for non-business use of the corporation acquired as of March 17, 1981, and therefore, the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702, Dec. 31, 1979) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

However, a non-profit corporation for the purpose of public interest refers to a non-profit corporation established under the Civil Act and other special Acts, the purpose of which is directly promoting the welfare of many and unspecified persons in society, and a corporation with specific classes, status or specific qualifications, or which directly aims at promoting their own interests or protecting their rights. Accordingly, according to the records, the plaintiff union shall not be deemed a non-profit corporation for the purpose of promoting the mutual common interests of the members of the cooperative as a non-profit corporation established under the Credit Cooperatives Act in order to foster the savings depth of the members of the cooperative in order to promote their common interests and promote the improvement of the quality of the members of the cooperative, the economic and social status of the members of the cooperative through the democratic management and utilization of the cooperative funds, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the specific persons in mutual ties relation are non-profit corporations with the purpose of promoting their common interests.

Therefore, even if the land of this case is the land for profit-making business of the plaintiff, such as the novel theory, so long as the plaintiff is not a juristic person for public interest, it cannot be excluded from the land for non-business use subject to the imposition of heavy tax rate pursuant to the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, so even though the court below failed to decide on the plaintiff's assertion of the lawsuit, it cannot affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be said that the court below

With respect to the third point:

The main sentence of subparagraph 3 of Article 84-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (the Presidential Decree No. 1979.12.31) provides that the land for non-business purposes of a corporation shall not be used directly for its original purpose (the purpose business under the Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation) within a certain period from the date of acquisition. The proviso of Article 142 (1) 1 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (the Ordinance No. 322 of Jun. 10, 1980) provides that the portion of the building which the corporation directly uses is less than 1/2 of the total floor area of the building which the corporation acquired shall be exempted from the total floor area of the building within 10 years from the date of the above new construction without any justifiable reason; the part of the building which the corporation acquired is not directly for non-business purposes of subparagraph 1 to 3 of Article 142-1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be exempted from the total floor area of the building; the above provision provides that portion shall be directly used for non-business purposes of Article 14.

Therefore, as duly determined by the court below, the plaintiff, a corporation under Article 10 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, acquired 277.7 square meters from March 17, 1981 at the time of original adjudication, and constructed 3-story buildings with a total floor area of 437.9 square meters on the ground, for office use, and 2-story and 3-story new construction with a multi-section and 437.9 square meters as of December 14 of the same year within 1 year from the date of acquisition of the above land, and leased 274.85 square meters to the non-party door 1, a total floor area of 3-story and 274.85 square meters from the date of acquisition of the above land, and used it as a multi-section and 5-story and 74.7 square meters for the plaintiff's unique business without such real estate rental business as above, the court below's decision is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above land, and it is not justified.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jin-Post (Presiding Justice)