In a case where a new house was sold due to the aggravation of financial standing, whether the site constitutes a land for non-business use of the corporation

The new construction of a private house is merely a stage of preparing for direct use for the proper purpose business of the same corporation, and even if the house was newly built and temporarily owned until the time of sale and disposal, so long as the house was sold and disposed of without using it as a private house, its site constitutes a non-business land of the corporation under Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the situation that the aggravation of the financial standing of the company did not constitute a case where there was a justifiable reason that the company could not sell and dispose of the house without using it as a private house.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 84-3 (1) 3

Attorney Hah-kon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu400 delivered on October 29, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case on November 30, 1981, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 7, 1983 with the prior approval of the seller on March 2, 1981, and completed the construction permission on December 30 of the same year with the approval of the seller on March 2, 1981, but did not directly use the land of the plaintiff company for non-business purposes without any justifiable reason under Article 84-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act in the case where the plaintiff's new construction of the house was conducted on July 29 of the same year without giving up the new house plan and without moving it into the completed new house upon the recommendation of the principal bank.

The above determination by the court below is just, and there are no errors in the application of the wrong interpretation of land for non-business use by a corporation under Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. The arguments are groundless.

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.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)