(a) Whether a corporation's land becomes non-business land if it was sold to another place within 4 years, which is the grace period for not-business use of the corporation, although the public waters reclaimed and acquired temporarily for the building of the factory site, which is the business authorized by the administrative agency (affirmative);

B. Whether a land disposition under the above paragraph (a) falls under real estate sales business which is the purpose business under the corporate registry, but does not fall under the authorized business (negative)

A. Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 190) provides that land which was first acquired through reclamation of public waters shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation for which four years have not passed since the date of its acquisition. This provision provides that land which was first acquired through reclamation of public waters shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation even if it was not used for the corporation's unique business for four years from the date of its acquisition, and if it was sold to others before the expiration of the period, it shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation pursuant to the above provision.

B. In relation to a corporation's land for non-business use in Article 2 (2) 3 of the same Act, a corporation's unique duties, other than "business affairs specified in the corporation's registry", and "business affairs approved or permitted by an administrative agency," should be determined independently from the corporation's business purposes in light of the unique characteristics of the business affairs approved or permitted by the administrative agency. Thus, the determination of whether the business affairs approved or permitted by the administrative agency are the corporation's unique business affairs. Thus, it does not belong to the corporation's unique business even if it

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13033, Jun. 29, 1990)

Dongi Industry Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Jinhae Market

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu834 delivered on January 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff and his attorney are also examined.

1. In full view of the evidences, the court below found that the non-party, who operated the shipbuilding machinery manufacturing business under the trade name of ○○ Industrial Complex, was a corporation that was changed to the plaintiff on May 23, 1983 for the purpose of expanding and relocating the factory located in Busan, the non-party, who was designated as the project operator of the industrial base development project under the Industrial Base Development Promotion Act (repealed by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Act") on January 5, 1984 after being designated as the project operator of the industrial base development project under the same name of ○○ Industrial Complex in order to avoid difficulties such as shortage of construction funds, etc. while carrying out the shipbuilding machinery and equipment construction project with the approval of the implementation plan for the industrial base development project for the shipbuilding machinery and equipment construction project on August 7, 1987, and the purpose of the court below's approval for the alteration of the land of the non-party, which was the land for the purpose of construction of construction of the new construction project.

2. Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13033, Jun. 29, 1990) provides that land for which four years have not passed since the date of its original acquisition after reclaiming public waters shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation. The land for which the original acquisition after reclaiming public waters by reclaiming public waters shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation even if it is not used for the corporation's unique business for four years from the date of its acquisition, and if it was sold or disposed of to others before the expiration of the period, it shall not be deemed land for non-business use of the corporation pursuant to the above provision.

In addition, in Article 84-4 (2) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act, the "business affairs approved or permitted by an administrative agency" other than "business affairs specified as business affairs on the corporate registry" as the unique business affairs of a corporation in relation to a corporation's land for non-business use shall be determined separately from the business affairs of the corporation in light of the unique characteristics of the business affairs approved or permitted by the administrative agency. Thus, it shall be determined whether the business affairs approved or permitted are the corporation's unique business affairs. Thus, even if the business affairs approved or permitted are the business affairs of the corporation in the corporate registry

3. As determined by the court below, the land of this case is the land originally acquired by the plaintiff through reclamation of public waters, and the purpose of the authorized business is not to sell or transfer the site creation of shipbuilding machinery and equipment production factory to be operated in the future by the plaintiff corporation to another person. As long as the plaintiff corporation sold or disposed of the land to another person before four years elapse from the acquisition date, even if the real estate sales business was registered as the purpose of the plaintiff corporation's business under the corporate register at the time of sale, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff corporation used the land for its unique business.

In the same purport, the court below is just to regard the land of this case as land for non-business use, and there is no illegality of misunderstanding of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit, and the precedents of lawsuit are not appropriate in this case. There

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 participating Justices.