[1] Whether the land owned by an insurance company as one of the methods of using the property under the Insurance Business Act is "land for non-business use" (negative)

[2] Whether it is necessary to determine whether a “justifiable cause” exists during the grace period unless a corporation falls under a corporation’s land for non-business use (negative)

[1] The acquisition and possession of land by an insurer within the extent not exceeding the ratio of 15/100 of total assets as one of the methods of managing its property for its proper purpose is used directly for its proper purpose, and it does not constitute a non-business land under Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994). It does not mean that an insurer owns non-business land under Article 84-4 (4) 12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986) and deleted by Presidential Decree No. 13033 of Jun. 29, 190.

[2] As long as a corporation's own land used directly for its own purpose does not fall under non-business use, it is not necessary to determine whether there exists any justifiable reason for the corporation to not start the construction work on the ground within one year after the acquisition of the above land.

[1] Articles 15(1)2 and 19 of the Insurance Business Act, Article 14(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act, Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 84-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994), Article 84-4(4)12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1303 of Jun. 29, 1990) / [2] Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), Article 84-4(4)12 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1484 of Dec. 18, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu58 delivered on August 23, 1983 (Gong1983, 1430) Supreme Court Decision 92Nu5942 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong1994Sang, 561 delivered on October 11, 1994)

Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Han-han et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

State Mayor (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Ha Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 95Gu483 delivered on June 20, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 19 of the Insurance Business Act provides that an insurer shall use the property under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 14(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act delegated by the insurer provides that an insurer shall use the property by any of the following methods. Article 15(1)2 of the same Act provides that an insurer shall not exceed 15/100 of the total assets if the insurer owns real estate and manages the property, it shall not exceed 19/100 of the total assets. Each of the above provisions provides that an insurer shall own the property within a certain scope of one way to secure insurance proceeds. Thus, an insurer’s acquisition and possession of the land within the scope of not exceeding 15/100 of the total assets for its own proper purpose is not directly used for the original purpose, and Article 14(2)2 of the same Act provides that Article 15(1)2 of the same Act provides that “The acquisition and use of the property shall not be deemed to have been carried out by the Presidential Decree No. 1984, Dec. 13, 1998-1. 198.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff, an insurer, acquires the land of this case within the scope not exceeding 15/100 of the total assets as one of the methods of managing the assets, and the land of this case does not constitute non-business land under the above local tax laws and regulations, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to non-business land of the corporation, such as theory of lawsuit. There is no ground for appeal.

In addition, as long as the land of this case is used directly for the plaintiff's proper purpose and does not fall under non-business use, the remaining grounds of appeal as to whether the plaintiff has justifiable grounds for not commencing the construction of private houses on the ground within one year after the acquisition of the land of this case shall not be further determined.

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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)