(a) Where the provisions of the Local Tax Act on exemption from acquisition tax of a factory building before new construction of a new factory after the acquisition of the land for factory are amended, the laws applicable to exemption from acquisition tax;

(b) Where land for factory is newly constructed within two years from the business operator designated as a factory location in kind, the case holding that it falls under the objects of exemption from acquisition tax under Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 1988);

A. Where the provisions of the Local Tax Act on exemption from the acquisition tax of a factory building before the construction of a new factory, the issue of whether the acquisition tax on the factory building is exempted should be determined in accordance with the effective law at the time of the completion of the taxation requirement of the acquisition tax, i.e., the law at the time

(b) The case holding that where land for factory is newly constructed within two years from the business operator designated as a factory location in kind, it constitutes an object of exemption from acquisition tax as provided in Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 1988).

(a)B. Article 110-3(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4212, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 7(2)1 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4216, Dec. 26, 198). Article 73(4) and Article 73(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Nu369 delivered on February 13, 1990 (Gong1990, 672) 90Nu7060 delivered on February 26, 1991 (Gong116 delivered on June 9, 1992) (Gong10725 delivered on June 9, 1992)

Bocochemical Co., Ltd.

Attorney Lee Byung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 91Gu934 delivered on January 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Where the provisions of the Local Tax Act on the exemption from acquisition tax of a factory building are amended before the construction of a new factory, whether the exemption from acquisition tax of the factory building should be determined in accordance with the effective law at the time of the completion of the taxation requirements of acquisition tax, i.e., the law at the time of the acquisition of the factory building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10725, Jun. 9, 192; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu369, Feb. 13, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 86Nu369, Apr. 6, 1990). The court below stated that the plaintiff acquired the factory building of this case after the completion inspection conducted on April 6, 199, and confirmed that it was acquired on the date, which was enforced at that time, by the amendment by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 198; and it should be determined in accordance with Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4213, Jan. 13, 1990).

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party, as an individual entrepreneur on July 28, 1987, was designated as the factory site of this case by the Do governor on August 25, 1987, and entered into an annual agreement with the non-party Land Development Corporation on August 25, 1987 to pay the down payment for the factory site of this case on the day and six times for the remaining three years. The plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired the factory site of this case on March 22, 1988 with the incorporation registration of the plaintiff corporation on October 19, 198, and the non-party Land Development Corporation paid the second installment payment on October 19, 198, and the plaintiff shall succeed to the rights and duties of the plaintiff and the non-party land of this case in the form of investment in kind. The plaintiff acquired the factory site of this case on November 28, 198, and the plaintiff shall be deemed to have acquired the factory site of this case on February 3, 1989.

The plaintiff's theory of lawsuit shall be determined on the basis of the date of acquisition of the factory site by the non-party, but it shall not be accepted since there is no reasonable ground to consider it retroactively.

There is also no reason for this issue.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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)