(a) Time it may be deemed that the creation of a golf course has changed to an amusement park;

(b) Whether separately prescribing the scope of structure subject to taxation of acquisition tax in the Local Tax Act is denying the assessment of such structure by deeming it as a part of land (negative)

A. It is reasonable to deem that the change of the form and quality of amusement park was made only when the construction work of the golf course was completed as a whole when the entire construction work following the establishment of the golf course can function as a golf course, i.e., when the construction work of the golf course is completed as a whole in order to view that the land category was changed to a golf course, the field, the field, and the forest land category of which was previously changed to an amusement park.

B. The Local Tax Act separately provides for the scope of structure subject to taxation of acquisition tax, regardless of whether the acquisition of such structure is an increase in the value of land, and does not deny the acquisition of such structure by deeming the structure constituting the constituent part of land as a part of land in discussing taxation objects of acquisition tax in cases where the increase in value of land is accompanied by a change of land category, etc.

Article 104 subparagraphs 1 and 4 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 105 (5) of the Local Tax Act

[Defendant-Appellant] Hanyang Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Pyeongtaek-gun Gun

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu12457 delivered on March 4, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the evidence adopted on February 25, 1986, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a golf course business from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on April 1, 1987 with the approval of the project plan; and (b) purchased a golf course on the surface of 841.503 square meters of land; (c) completed construction works on April 12, 1989 with the land category of KRW 15,357,09,00; and (d) changed from the above land category to the amusement park and the Defendant’s construction cost on August 2, 1989 without filing a report on acquisition tax; and (e) recognized that the land category of the above road was not subject to taxation under Article 105(5) of the Local Tax Act, based on the premise that the land category of the above road was changed due to the increase in the construction cost of the above land due to the change of its category and quality; and (e) determined that the above land category was not subject to taxation under Article 105(5) of the Local Tax Act.

In comparison with relevant laws and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justified.

The issue is that road packaging facilities are separate from land in corporate accounting and are treated as assets subject to depreciation, and the Local Tax Act also limits the scope of structures subject to taxation by dividing the acquisition of land and the acquisition of structure as assets subject to taxation by borrowing the above accounting concept of acquisition tax. Therefore, the above road packaging facilities fall under the increase in the value of the buildings and do not constitute an increase in the value of land. However, the separate provisions on the scope of structures subject to taxation of acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act are merely to separate land regardless of whether the acquisition of such structures is increased in the value of land or not, and it does not deny the assessment of the structures that constitute the constituent part of land when the increase in the value of land is accompanied by the increase in the value of land due to the change of land category, etc.

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.