(a) The meaning of "where it is not used directly for its proper purpose without justifiable reasons within one year from the date of acquisition" as the grounds for heavy taxation of acquisition tax under Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984)

B. Whether a corporation violates the principle of equality under Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 3752 of Aug. 8, 1984), which provides for heavy taxation on the acquisition of land for non-business use of the corporation

(a) Where a person fails to directly use the land for its proper purpose without any justifiable reason within one year from the date of acquisition which is a heavy taxation ground for acquisition tax under Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984) includes not only the case where the above period has passed without any justifiable reason within one year from the date of acquisition, but also the case where the person fails to use the land for its proper purpose by selling it to another within one year from the date of acquisition without any justifiable reason.

B. Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3752, Aug. 8, 1984) that provides for heavy taxation on the acquisition of land for non-business use of a corporation intends to prevent real estate speculation and to promote the sound improvement and development of the national economy by preventing real estate speculation and increasing the utility value of land by punishing a corporation from acquiring, using, or leaving the land for any interest other than its own purpose. Thus, the above provision does not contravene the Article 10 of the Constitution that declares equality rights and the principle of

(a)(b)Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 3752 of Aug. 8, 1984); Article 84-3(1)3 and (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984); Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 18 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Nu242 delivered on March 22, 1983, 86Nu158 delivered on October 28, 1986

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Msan Market

Daegu High Court Decision 86Gu14 delivered on September 3, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined as follows. (The supplementary appellate brief was submitted after the expiration of the period for submission.)

(1) The term "land for non-business use of a corporation" under Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 3752 of Aug. 8, 1984), Article 84-3 and Article 84 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (the Presidential Decree No. 11399 of Apr. 6, 1984) at the time of the occurrence of the cause of the instant taxation refers to the land which is not used directly for its proper purpose without justifiable reasons within one year from the date of its acquisition; however, the term "Article 142 (1) 1 (7) (c) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act" and "Ma" shall not be deemed land for non-business use of a corporation. Thus, it is reasonable to include not only the case where the above period has not been used directly for its proper purpose without justifiable reasons, but also the case where the land has not been used for its proper purpose within one year after its acquisition, within 18 years from the date of its acquisition, and shall not be used for other 28 years 19.28.28

According to the facts and records established by the court below in this case, it can be known that the plaintiff corporation was established for the purpose of imitate occupation, textile products manufacturing and selling business, real estate leasing business, and the plaintiff corporation acquired 1/3 shares out of the land of this case 1/10 of the same year by winning the bid and paying the price for 1/10.10 of the same year, and it is not used for its proper purpose. It is obvious that the plaintiff corporation did not include real estate selling business for the purpose of business under the Acts and subordinate statutes or its articles of incorporation. In this case, it cannot be deemed that the land of this case was not used directly for its proper purpose without any justifiable reason, but it did not reach an agreement on joint management between the joint buyers on the ground that it did not use the land of this case directly for its proper purpose, and the land of this case constitutes a non-business land of this case and the land of this case is not subject to legitimate grounds under the rules of evidence and the law of the law of the local tax law. Thus, the plaintiff corporation's disposition of this case is justified and justified for non-business.

(2) The right of equality stipulated in Article 10 of the Constitution is equal before the law by respecting the dignity and personality of an individual, and all citizens are equal in front of the law. The right of equality stipulated in Article 10 of the Constitution is not established without discrimination in all areas of political, economic, social, and cultural life due to gender, religion, or social status, such as equal equality, common election, equal opportunity of education, prohibition of privilege pursuant to the former, etc., and the system of social special rank cannot be established in any area of political, economic, social, or cultural life. On the other hand, the principle of equality of taxation or the principle of fair tax burden should not be established in any form of a taxpayer’s taxable capacity. Since a corporation intends to take fair burden by fair taxation, such as tax rates, various deductions, non-taxation, etc. according to the taxpayer’s taxable capacity, it prevents real estate speculation and increases the utility value of land to prevent the sound improvement and development of the national economy by preventing the acquisition of land other than its own purpose, it does not go against the principle of equality of taxation as well as its independent opinion.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the 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 Yoon Yoon-hee (Presiding Justice)