[1] Whether the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act violates the delegation scope of the mother law or violates the principle of no taxation without law (negative), and whether the land acquired under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act is subject to the above provision (affirmative)

[2] The standard for determining the "justifiable cause for the discontinuance of construction" on the basis of determining whether a corporation whose construction was commenced and whose construction was interrupted for non-business use is the heavy acquisition tax

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize the justifiable reasons for a corporation to suspend construction work on land for more than one year after commencing construction work on land

[1] The purport of imposing acquisition tax on non-business land of a corporation under the Local Tax Act is to restrain unnecessary investment in a business unrelated to the corporation's unique business and regulate speculation on land from tax perspective, while considering that the purpose of the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998) is to promote the sale of land for non-business use, thereby inducing the appropriateness in the management of corporate funds through the production and capitalization of funds already owned, the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998) provides that the corporation shall be deemed land for non-business use, thereby strengthening the criteria for determining land for non-business use by stipulating the specific scope of taxation subject to taxation pursuant to the above purport of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the above provision goes against the delegation scope of the mother law

[2] "Justifiable reasons for the discontinuance of construction" as a basis for determining whether a corporation is a land for non-business use of a corporation with heavy acquisition tax when a construction work commenced and the construction work is interrupted means an internal reason for which the corporation cannot continue the construction work without mind, such as prohibition, restriction, etc. of construction under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and the internal reason for which the corporation has to continue the construction work in spite of its normal efforts and implementation. Therefore, the existence of such justifiable reasons should be determined individually on a case-by-case basis in full view of the legislative intent of imposing acquisition tax, including whether the corporation is a profit-making corporation, the scale of the construction work, the period required for the completion of the construction work, the length and degree of the construction work, the statutory and de facto disability and degree of the construction work, whether the corporation has made efforts to proceed with the construction work, whether the cause or not there is a reason attributable to the administrative

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize the justifiable reasons for a corporation to suspend construction work on land for more than one year after commencing construction work on land

[1] Article 112 (2) 6 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200), Article 84-4 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998), Article 84-4 (3) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998), Articles 59 and 75 of the Constitution / [2] Article 112 (2) 6 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6312 of Dec. 29, 200), Article 84-4 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998), Article 84-4 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 168) 2)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4515 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992, 803) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5257 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 431) Supreme Court Decision 97Nu5121 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong199Sang, 73), Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3132 delivered on February 24, 199 (Gong199Sang, 587), Supreme Court Decision 98Du6012 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 82) / Supreme Court Decision 200Du42940 delivered on May 12, 2000 (Gong29404 delivered on May 24, 209)

Manager of New Metal Industry Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Cheong Law, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jinhae Market (Law Firm Samd, Attorneys Jeong Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2000Nu4200 delivered on August 31, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purport of imposing acquisition tax on non-business land of a corporation under the Local Tax Act is to restrain unnecessary investment in a business unrelated to the corporation's unique business and to regulate speculation on land from taxation, while considering that the purpose is to encourage the proper operation of corporate funds by facilitating the sale of land for non-business use already owned by the corporation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4515, Dec. 27, 1991, etc.) and Article 84-4 (3) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998) of the former Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998), if a corporation discontinues construction on land for not less than one year after starting construction work on land, the relevant land shall be deemed land for non-business use by prescribing the specific scope of taxable objects in accordance with the above purport of the Local Tax Act, and thus strengthening the criteria for judgment on non-business land cannot be accepted.

2. “Justifiable reason for the suspension of construction” means not only external reason for which a corporation cannot continue construction, such as prohibition, restriction, etc. of construction under the Acts and subordinate statutes, but also internal reason for which a corporation has to continue construction despite its normal efforts and implementation. Thus, the existence of justifiable reason should be determined individually based on specific matters, taking into account sufficient legislative intent to impose acquisition tax, such as whether the corporation is a profit-making corporation, the scale of the construction work, the length of the period required for the completion of the construction work, the statutory and de facto disability and degree of the construction work, the legal and de facto disability and degree of the construction work, whether the corporation has made efforts to proceed with the construction work, whether the cause or not there is a reason attributable to the administrative agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du8398, Dec. 6, 2002).

Based on its adopted evidence, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that the new metal has been suspended for more than one year due to inevitable reasons, such as the aggravation of management conditions and lack of driving funds, even though it made normal and advanced efforts to acquire the instant land and use it for its unique purpose, on March 28, 1998, after the commencement of construction work on March 31, 1998, which was before three years elapsed since the acquisition of the instant land, but the suspension of construction work on the instant land was one year or more, and there is a justifiable reason for suspending construction work on the instant land. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a justifiable reason for suspending construction work on the instant land for more than one year.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles and related statutes and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to legitimate grounds for suspension of construction work. Thus

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)