[1] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that it constitutes a "factory subject to heavy acquisition tax"

[2] The scope of "transfer of a factory excluded from the "new construction of a factory in a large city" subject to the heavy acquisition tax of real estate

[1] The case holding that where a menter's 2-story factory and a warehouse of 90 square meters of a factory building and a 907-2 square meters of a building are leased and registered as a factory and used as a place where prefabricated bathing parts are processed or assembled with 41 employees after completing registration of each factory, it constitutes "place equipped with production facilities for the purpose of manufacturing, processing, repairing, printing, etc. goods" under Article 47 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, i.e., a factory under Article 47 (1) of the Local Tax Act, and its appurtenant land

[2] In light of the purport of Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994), and relevant provisions, "transfer of a factory excluded from the new construction of a factory in a large city among acquisition tax" refers to a case where a person who operates a factory in his own real estate closes the existing factory and acquires real estate located in another place and relocates the factory to that place, or a person who operates a factory leases real estate owned by another, relocates the existing factory after two years from the date of the new construction of the factory to the new real estate newly acquired the new factory and later transfers the facility to another real estate. Thus, in a case where a person who has operated a factory by leasing another real estate owned by another person relocates the existing factory in another place, such transfer to the owner of the leased real estate cannot be deemed as falling under the transfer of the acquisition tax and the new one excluded from such transfer.

[1] Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14753 of Aug. 21, 1995); Article 47 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 633 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-2(2)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481 of Dec. 31, 1994)

Plaintiff

The head of Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu12011 delivered on January 11, 1996

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined on January 9, 1994 that the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case and constructed a men’s 2-story factory and warehouse on the ground of 907 square meters on the ground, and leased it to Sungjin Co., Ltd., Ltd. on the prefabricated-dong, Incheon, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, 1992. On September 30, 1992, the above company leased 90 square meters of factory buildings to its owner and completed factory registration on April 15, 1993, and completed factory registration for the purpose of manufacturing non-urban plastic products on March 4, 1994, for which the Plaintiff leased the above building, etc. and completed factory registration for the purpose of manufacturing non-urban plastic products, and that the above company’s work process under the name of employees constituted a prefabricated bath-style, prefabricated-style and a part of the above construction site, such as a prefabricated-type and prefabricated-type prefabricated-type container or a part of the above construction site.

Examining the process of acquiring the instant real estate by the Plaintiff in light of the provisions of relevant statutes and the circumstances of the registration of factory, and the contents of the above manufacturing business conducted on the instant real estate by the said company, the lower court is justifiable to regard the instant real estate as a factory under the said provisions, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 112 (3) of the Local Tax Act provides that any object of taxation for business shall be imposed on the acquisition of a factory to newly build or extend a factory in a large city as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 84-2 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) provides that "the relocation of a factory in the large city is excluded where a person who has operated a factory by leasing a factory owned by another person, relocates such factory within 2 years from the date of the new construction of the factory shall be excluded." In light of the purport of each of the above provisions and the relevant provisions, "transfer of a factory excluded from the new construction of a factory in the large city subject to acquisition tax and its related provisions, where a person who has operated a factory in his own real estate closes the existing factory and relocates the real estate located in another place, or where a person who has operated a factory by leasing the existing real estate to another place, transfers the real estate to another person's new owner's real estate after leasing it.

The judgment of the court below, which held that the non-party company's construction or relocation of the building site 50 square meters on July 22, 1991 and 90 square meters on September 30, 1992 by leasing the building site ( Address 1 omitted) and the building site 90 square meters on September 30, 192 by its owner does not constitute a transfer of a factory that is excluded from the acquisition tax, and that the transfer of the building site again acquired by the plaintiff does not constitute a transfer of a factory that is excluded from the acquisition tax. The judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory

In addition to the above judgment of the court below, even if the non-party company's act of operating the factory by leasing the real estate of this case constitutes the relocation of the factory, it shall be deemed that the new factory was established only after around September 30, 1992, which leased the above factory building, or around April 15, 1993, which was registered as a factory. Thus, in the case of this case where the company transferred the factory to the real estate of this case on January 9, 1994, which was not more than two years from that time, did not meet the requirements for exclusion from heavy taxation required for factory management for more than two years, and eventually, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise of the facts acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are without merit.

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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)