A. The meaning of “land and fixtures owned by a project executor under the Tourism Promotion Act for a tourist complex development project” under Article 110-3(2)14 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191)

(b) The case holding that it does not fall under the objects attached to the land referred to in paragraph (a) in the case of rebuilding in order to operate a general hotel which was completed as part of a tourist complex development project and operated as a training facility for tourist employees; and

A. The term “land and fixtures owned by a project implementer under the Tourism Promotion Act for a tourist complex development project” subject to exemption from acquisition tax under Article 110-3(2)14 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191) means not only all land and fixtures acquired in the course of implementing a tourist complex development project, but also land and fixtures already developed in the course of developing tourist facilities, where the use and profit-making has not yet commenced.

(b) The case holding that it does not fall under the fixtures on the land referred to in the above "A" if he/she increased or reconstructed a general hotel which was completed as part of a tourist complex development project and operated as a practical training facility for tourism workers to operate a tourist hotel;

Article 110-3 (2) 14 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9350 delivered on May 12, 1992 (Gong1992, 1899) 92Nu13165 delivered on December 22, 1992, Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1429 delivered on December 22, 192 (Gong193,643)

New Tourism Development Corporation, Inc.

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu High Court Decision 92Gu252 delivered on July 22, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below determined to the effect that the "land fixtures owned by a project implementer under the Tourism Promotion Act", which is an exemption from acquisition tax under Article 110-3 (2) 14 of the Local Tax Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191, means not only all land fixtures acquired in the course of implementing a tourism complex development project (development project, project to implement a development plan) in accordance with the development plan, but also land fixtures acquired in the course of implementing a tourism complex development project (project to implement a development plan) and those fixtures already developed in the course of developing a tourism complex (project), but only land fixtures in the progress of which use and profit-making has not yet commenced. The court below decided to the effect that the plaintiff's implementation of the existing tourism complex development project was not completed in the course of implementing the tourism complex development project as a project implementer for the development of the Seocho-gu Tourist Tourist Complex (development project) project as part of the development project, the plaintiff's operation of the tourism complex development project as part of the development project, as a tourist hotel development project.

The above judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the opinion that the precedents of party members (Law No. 91Nu10206 delivered on May 8, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu9350 delivered on May 12, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13267 delivered on June 23, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Nu13165 delivered on December 22, 1992, etc.) are followed, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misapprehending the legal principles or inconsistent reasons, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the plaintiff's 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 Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)