Whether the heavy tax rate is applied in cases where a residential building used as a warehouse or office is included in the acquisition by succession of a factory (negative)

Even if a residential building is included in the acquisition by succession of a factory, if the building was used as a warehouse and office directly supplied for production, it cannot be applied to the acquisition of the heavy taxation rate.

Article 84-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 47 subparag. 1 and Article 47 subparag. 7 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act

Co., Ltd.

Head of the North Korean Office in Daegu Special Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu97 delivered on November 16, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to the first and second points:

The Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369, Mar. 25, 202) provides that the succession acquisition of a factory in a large city under Article 84-2 (2) shall be excluded from the heavy tax rate, and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369, Mar. 25, 200) which enters into force at the time when the taxation requirement of this case was established shall include a place with production equipment (including a warehouse and office in a factory directly offered for production) and land annexed thereto to be used for the purpose of product, processing, repair, printing, etc. of goods for business purposes: Provided, That it shall not be deemed a factory (Article 47 subparagraph 1) that a place which is not directly used for production such as a shelter, arms, ammunition, temporary storage, restaurant, dormitory, educational facility, etc. of an existing factory shall not be deemed a factory (Article 47 subparagraph 7).

According to the facts established by the court below, the land and buildings listed in the second list of the original sheet of the original sheet of the original sheet that the defendant recognized as acquiring by succession the factory were owned by Nonparty 1, as well as the land and buildings listed in the first list of the same sheet of the original sheet of the original sheet of the original sheet of the original sheet of the original sheet that the defendant recognized as acquiring by succession the factory. The plaintiff purchased them from Nonparty 1 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership from Nonparty 2, and made a fishing market store by comprehensively taking over all the production facilities, etc. of the above factory from Nonparty 2, a lessee, and made a fishing market store at the same place. Therefore, the building listed in the second list of the original sheet of the original sheet of the original sheet (registered as a residential building) and its site are located in the same factory as the factory building and building site in which the defendant recognized as acquiring by succession the factory, and it can be recognized by relevant evidence that they constitute a factory, and thus, it cannot be seen as being subject to the application of the Local Tax Act.

With respect to the third point:

In comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is not sufficient in the process of finding that the building and site stated in the list No. 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below belong to the factory building and site as stated in the list No. 2 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and according to Article 47 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the term "factory" used in Article 84-2 of the same Enforcement Decree means a factory with production facilities (including a warehouse and office directly offered for production) and its appurtenant land so that it can be used for the purpose of product, processing, repair, printing, etc. of goods for business purposes. Thus, even if a building for residential use meets the above requirements, it shall be deemed a factory prescribed in the above rules if it is possible to use it as a factory under the Building Act, and it shall not be deemed that it becomes a factory under the above rule only if it is changed to the purpose of use for the factory building

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju