[1] In determining whether a corporation's land for non-business use under the grace period under Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, whether the grace period may be extended by excluding the period of non-business use from the grace period (negative)

[2] The standard for determining "business affairs approved or permitted by an administrative authority" as the unique business affairs of a corporation related to land for non-business use under Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[3] The case holding that where the purpose of reclamation of land reclaimed pursuant to the Public Waters Reclamation Act is "commercial facility expansion" and the sale of reclaimed land itself cannot be deemed as being used directly for the corporation's unique business because it is not authorized business

[1] Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 195) provides that "land for non-business use of a corporation under the provisions of Article 112 (2) of the Act refers to land falling under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 112 (1) 1 (e) through (d) of the same Act provides that general cases where a corporation does not fall under subparagraph 1 (a) through (d) of the same paragraph, it refers to land which is not used directly for its unique business without justifiable reasons within one year from the date of its acquisition." Article 84-4 (4) of the same Act provides that "land falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of the same Article, which is reclaimed by the Public Waters Reclamation Act (the date of permission or permission where approval for use was obtained prior to the date of authorization for completion of construction work)" as one of the above Article 84 (4) of the Enforcement Decree.

[2] Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995) provides that "the business of obtaining authorization or permission from an administrative agency in addition to "the business of a corporation related to land for non-business use" as its unique business of a corporation. In light of its unique characteristics, the business of obtaining authorization or permission from an administrative agency should be judged whether it is a corporation's unique business according to the contents of authorization or permission independently from the business of the corporation. Thus, even if the business of the authorization or permission is not obtained or it is intended for business on the corporate register, it shall not be deemed that it is a corporation's unique business.

[3] The case holding that where the purpose of reclamation of land reclaimed pursuant to the Public Waters Reclamation Act is "commercial facility expansion", the sale of reclaimed land itself cannot be deemed as being used directly for the corporation's unique business because it is not authorized business

[1] Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995) [2] Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14878 of Dec. 30, 1995] / [3] Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14814 of Dec. 14, 198) [see current Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5121 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 73) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3132 delivered on February 24, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 587) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu11843 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1658) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu226 delivered on November 13, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 157), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu11556 delivered on October 10, 197 (Gong197Ha, 3509)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term used in relation to the term used in the term used in the term used in the term

State Mayor (Law Firm Hanra, Attorneys Jung-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Gu524 delivered on May 29, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the second ground for appeal

A. We examine the records in comparison with the fact finding by the court below, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

B. Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that "land for non-business use of a corporation under Article 112 (2) of the Act refers to land falling under any of the following subparagraphs," and it does not fall under subparagraph 1 (a) through (d) of the same paragraph without justifiable grounds within one year from the date of its acquisition. Article 84-4 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "land falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs (1) through (3) of the same Article, the grace period shall not be deemed to be the land for which the above grace period cannot be determined within 9 days after the authorization of completion of the construction work or within 97 days after the authorization of completion of the construction work." Article 84-4 (1) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "land shall not be used for non-business use of the above 97 days."

Therefore, the court below's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the period from August 14, 191 to July 13, 1992, which was prohibited from constructing land 1 and 2, and from March 22, 1993 to July 6, 1995, was not excluded from the four-year grace period under Article 84-4 (4) 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and that the period from March 22, 1993 to July 6, 1995 should not be excluded from the four-year grace period under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the court below's decision is just in accordance with the above legal principles and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grace period for non-business decision or in the inconsistent reasoning as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal (the plaintiff's assertion that the land 1 and 2 of this case fall under the land stipulated in Article 84-4 (4) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, but it does not affect the above grace period.

C. In addition, the ground of appeal that the plaintiff had justifiable grounds for not using the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case directly for the plaintiff's unique duties is merely supporting the extension of the grace period already rejected, and it does not appear as an independent ground of appeal. In addition, the court below's determination that the court below's justifiable grounds for not using the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case directly for its unique duties cannot be accepted, considering the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, is just and correct

2. On the first ground for appeal

Article 84-4 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1980, Nov. 13, 1992; Presidential Decree No. 2226, Oct. 10, 1997; Presidential Decree No. 2014, Nov. 13, 1992; Presidential Decree No. 2015, Oct. 10, 209; Presidential Decree No. 2019, Feb. 29, 201; Presidential Decree No. 2015, Feb. 29, 201; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Feb. 23, 2011).

According to the decision of the court below, since the land No. 1 in this case was reclaimed by the plaintiff under the Public Waters Reclamation Act and the purpose of reclamation which was authorized at the time of the plaintiff's reclamation license is "commercial facility expansion", it shall be determined whether it was used only for its own purpose, and it shall not be excluded from non-business real estate only for the above reclamation license. The court below's decision that the sale of land No. 1 in this case does not constitute a sale of reclaimed land itself in the meaning of constructing commercial facility site and supplying commercial facility on the reclaimed land. It shall not be deemed that the plaintiff's sale of land in this case was directly used for the plaintiff's own business, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the unique business for determining non-business land, incomplete deliberation, or misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence. Furthermore, according to the records, even if "commercial facility expansion" includes the sale of reclaimed land itself on February 29, 196, the plaintiff's sale of land No. 1 in this case can be viewed as a grace period for sale within 14 years.

We cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point.

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

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)