A. The amended provisions of Article 110-3(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198) concerning exemption from acquisition tax and the applicable provisions to determine whether there are grounds for additional collection of acquisition tax thereafter

B. The purport of the proviso of Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 198; Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990);

(c) The case holding that if a new company is established while a factory is constructed on the land that was purchased by the factory site, and the new company succeeds to its business and then transfers the right to land to the new company while producing the products, etc. intended to be produced according to the initial business plan, such sale shall constitute a case where justifiable reasons exist;

D. Whether collection of acquisition tax pursuant to Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act cannot be made unless acquisition tax is subject to additional collection due to justifiable grounds in selling land, such as the above "C" (affirmative)

A. Where Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198) concerning exemption from acquisition tax is amended after the acquisition of land for factory, whether the land is subject to exemption from acquisition tax should be determined pursuant to the provisions of Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act, which is the law at the time of its acquisition. However, whether the transfer of the above land within two years from the date of its acquisition constitutes a ground for additional collection of acquisition tax, barring any special circumstance, whether the transfer of the above land within two years from the date of its acquisition constitutes a ground for additional collection shall be determined pursuant to the provisions of Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198; Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 190).

B. The purport of the proviso of Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198, and amended by Act No. 4212, Jan. 13, 1990) is as follows: (a) where a purchaser of the pertinent real estate sells it to a third party without justifiable grounds even though it is not directly used for a factory, which is the original purpose of acquisition without justifiable grounds, but for a period of two years or less; and (b) if it is sold to the third party without justifiable grounds, the original reason for exemption from acquisition tax ceases to exist; and (c) even if it is sold within two years, such sale does not deviate from the original purpose of exemption from acquisition tax; and (d) if there are justifiable grounds, it does not constitute the proviso of the said

C. In the event that the Plaintiff, while constructing a factory on the land that he purchased from the Korea Land Development Corporation as a factory site, was investing in another company that is the affiliated company in order to enhance the efficiency of factory operation and the contribution to the local economy, and subsequently, if the Plaintiff succeeded to the business and the Plaintiff intended to manufacture the products, etc. that he intended to manufacture according to the original business plan, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the right to the said land to the newly incorporated company does not waive the original purpose of use for acquiring the said land, but did not allow the newly incorporated company to complete the new construction of the factory and directly use for the factory, and thus, it does not exceed the original purpose of exemption from acquisition tax. Thus, the sale constitutes a case where there

D. Unless acquisition tax is subject to additional collection due to justifiable grounds in selling land, such as the above "C", it cannot be additionally collected pursuant to Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 1991).

A. Article 110-3 (2) 1(b) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198), Article 110-3 (2) 1(d) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198 and amended by Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990)

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7060 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1116). Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6078 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1066)

Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and one other

Attorney Kim Jong-he et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Gu79 delivered on September 19, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant performer

1. According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff was designated as a site for the land of this case on June 25, 198 pursuant to Article 6 of the Local Industrial Development Act (amended by Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990), and purchased it as a site for factory under the condition that the Korea Land Development Corporation redeems it in twenty installments from July 26, 1993, and obtained approval for use from the above construction. On March 2, 1989, the plaintiff started construction of manufacturing factories such as electricity, electronic equipment, accessories, etc. on the above factory site and started construction of factories on March 2, 198, while the total process was 95%, the plaintiff and the plaintiff were 75%, and 25% of the total production process was established, and the non-party 1 corporation established the non-party Gwangju Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") on the above and above construction on the ground and the rights and obligations of the factory building and obligations of the non-party company.

2. Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 1988; hereinafter the same shall apply) which was enforced by the Plaintiff at the time of acquiring the instant land shall be exempted from the acquisition tax on the real estate for business acquired by a person designated for the location under Article 6 of the Local Industry Development Act within 2 years from the date of being designated for the purpose of using it in the development zone; however, if the real estate for business is not used directly for his proper business without any justifiable reason within 2 years from the date of its acquisition, the exempted acquisition tax shall be collected additionally; and Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act amended by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 1988; Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 198);

3. If circumstances are as above, whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant land becomes subject to exemption from acquisition tax should be determined by the former Act, which is the law at the time of its acquisition. However, whether the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land within two years from the date of its acquisition constitutes a ground for collection of acquisition tax, barring any special circumstance, it should be determined in accordance with the amended Local Tax Act, which is the law at the time of the occurrence of the instant cause, as amended, in accordance with the provisions of the Local Tax Act, at the time of its occurrence (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7060, Feb.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just to determine whether to collect acquisition tax under the amended Local Tax Act, and it cannot be said that this was applied retroactively to the above amended Local Tax Act. There is no reason to discuss.

As to the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Performers and the grounds of appeal by Defendant Litigation Attorney

1. According to the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing.

2. The purport of the proviso of Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the amended Local Tax Act is to collect it from a person who acquired the real estate in question from a third party on the ground that, without justifiable grounds, the reason for exempting the acquisition tax has ceased to exist if the person who acquired the real estate in question sells it to a third party without a justifiable reason even though it has been used directly for the factory for the original purpose of acquisition, which is the original purpose of acquisition. Therefore, even if it is sold within two years, it does not deviate from the original purpose of exempting the acquisition tax, but does not fall under the proviso of the amended Local Tax Act if there

(See Decision 91Nu6078 delivered on February 14, 1992)

3. According to the records, in order to enhance the efficiency of factory operation and contribution to the regional economy while constructing a factory on the land of this case, the plaintiff and the non-party Jeonju Group Co., Ltd., which are its affiliated companies, established a separate company as above by joint investment, and let the non-party company succeed to this business and produce products, etc. that the plaintiff intended to manufacture according to the original business plan. If the facts are as seen above, the plaintiff transferred the right to the land of this case to the non-party company does not waive the purpose of use for which the plaintiff acquired the land of this case was originally acquired, but it cannot be deemed that the newly established company allowed the non-party company to complete the construction of the factory and directly use it for the factory, and it goes beyond the original purpose of exemption from the acquisition tax. Thus, it is reasonable to view

Therefore, the court below is justified in holding that the defendant's disposition of this case is unlawful, which imposed the down payment and the excessive acquisition tax on the annual installments paid to the Korea Land Corporation before the plaintiff transferred the right to the land of this case to the non-party company.

4. The court below acknowledged that the non-party company comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the plaintiff in the process of its explanation, and determined that the act of succession does not fall under the proviso of Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the amended Local Tax Act, in light of the fact that the non-party company is a separate juristic person from the plaintiff and the non-party company, it cannot be viewed as an appropriate expression. Even if the plaintiff and the non-party company have transferred the rights and obligations under the above circumstances, the transfer of the land portion of this case among them shall be deemed as a sale. However, as seen above, insofar as the sale of the land of this case does not fall

5. In addition, the court below erred in failing to deliberate and decide whether the land is subject to Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act. However, as seen above, unless the plaintiff's sale of the land of this case is subject to collection of acquisition tax due to justifiable grounds, it cannot be subject to collection of additional tax pursuant to Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act, and the above judgment of the court below is contrary to the fundamental purport of Article 112-2 (2) of the same Act, which provides for heavy taxation of acquisition tax. Therefore, all of the arguments are without merit.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)