Cases where "non-business land" under subparagraph 3 of Article 84-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act cannot be deemed as "non-business land"

If the plaintiff corporation uses this case's land in the incidental business related to the purpose of its articles of incorporation (production and sale of dilution) (the storage and parking lot for the official branch and the official official on duty), it cannot be viewed as the land which is not directly used for its proper purpose under subparagraph 3 of Article 84-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 84-3 subparagraph 3

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Attorney Han-dae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Special Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 80Gu159 delivered on January 27, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, while the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the construction of the plaintiff company's Busan office from December 28, 1978 to January 18, 1979, the court below decided that the construction of the plaintiff company's Busan office was not possible due to construction restrictions until July 31, 1979, and the boundary was installed with the bridge fence, and used as the storage and parking lot for the dilution tenant directly related to the manufacture and sale of the plaintiff company's own business, the above land was used as the storage and parking lot for the defendant company's main purpose, and it was possible to use the above land from the head of the Dong Busan District Tax Office as the storage and it was possible to use it as the storage, and requested the new construction design of the plaintiff company 1.30 square meters from March 29, 1979, and decided that the plaintiff's use of the land of this case was not related to the purpose of the establishment project, and therefore, the court below's decision was justified and without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)