(a) Relationship under Article 84-4 (1), (2) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

(b) Whether the collection of earth and rocks is “forest business” as provided in Article 84-4(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

(c) Where a forest is acquired with the knowledge of the fact that the use of forest land is subject to statutory restrictions, whether it can be used as justifiable grounds under the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

A. Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-4(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that acquisition tax shall be imposed on non-business land of a corporation. The purpose of Article 112(2) of the same Act and Article 84-4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is to prevent unproductive speculation caused by the acquisition and holding of land for non-business purpose. In particular, Article 112(2) of the same Act and Article 84-4(3) of the same Decree strengthens the criteria for determining whether a corporation is directly related to land for non-business purpose such as real estate leasing, real estate selling, agriculture, livestock industry, forest industry, etc., the purpose of which is to prevent the corporation from acquiring and holding excessive land for non-business purpose. Thus, the determination of whether a corporation which does not engage in agriculture, livestock industry, or forest business as its main business constitutes non-business land should be based on Article 84-4(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act regardless of whether it constitutes non-business real estate.

(b) The manufacture and processing and sale of aggregate shall not be “forest business” under Article 84-4(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

C. If it was known that the permission to collect earth and stones for the forest is limited to a certain area in accordance with the City Regulations and that part of the forest is designated as a development restriction area and the use of the forest is subject to statutory restrictions, the restriction on use of the forest can not be used as justifiable grounds provided in the proviso of Article 84-4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

(a)b)Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-4(3)(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-4(1) and Article 84-4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20030 delivered on February 22, 1994, 94Nu7508 delivered on October 14, 1994, 92Nu12926 delivered on July 27, 1993

Attorney Seo Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu7600 delivered on September 29, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-4(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that acquisition tax on non-business land of a corporation shall be imposed. The corporation seeks to prevent non-productive speculation caused by the acquisition and holding of land other than its original purpose. In particular, Article 112(2) of the same Act and Article 84-4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act strengthens the criteria for determining whether a corporation directly related to land for non-business use, such as real estate leasing, real estate selling, agriculture, livestock industry, and forest business, is trying to prevent the corporation from acquiring and holding excessive land (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu7508 delivered on October 14, 1994). Thus, the above Article 84-4(3)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 84-4(2) of the same Act and Article 84-4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, regardless of whether it constitutes non-business property under paragraph 29(304).

This paper argues that the court below's decision may be judged as non-business land even under Article 84-4 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree when a corporation which does not make agriculture, etc. as its main business is acquired through the above Article 84-4 (3) 4 of the above Enforcement Decree. Thus, it cannot be accepted because it criticizes the court below on the premise that it can be judged

2. On the second ground for appeal

The decision of the court below that the main business of the plaintiff corporation is not "forest business" under Article 84-4 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act shall be justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 46-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and the Forestry Act, such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to the main text and proviso of Article 84-4(3) and Article 84-4(4)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, the pre-acquisition, answer, etc. by a corporation which does not engage in agriculture, etc. as its main business shall not be deemed non-business land unless the corporation changes its land category into the category of land other than the previous answer, etc. and directly uses it for the purpose corresponding to the unique business of the relevant corporation within one year from the date of acquisition.

However, the plaintiff's land category of the forest of this case changed and did not directly use the forest of this case for its proper purpose is limited to less than 10,000 square meters, and it is not possible to use the whole forest of this case directly for the plaintiff's proper purpose by changing its land category at a time. In addition, with respect to 82,500 square meters among the forest of this case, the development of the forest of this case is prohibited as a development restriction zone. This circumstance is a case where there is a justifiable reason under the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act. Thus, the court below argued that this should be excluded from non-business land because the plaintiff's previous land category was changed within one year from the date of its acquisition, and since the court below did not use the forest of this case directly for the corporation's unique purpose, it should be viewed as non-business land regardless of whether there is a justifiable reason or not. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle of Article 84-4 (3) of the above Enforcement Decree.

However, according to the records, at the time of acquiring the forest of this case, the plaintiff can be recognized that the permission to collect the forest of this case is limited to 10,000 square meters according to the regulations of the Busan Metropolitan City and Metropolitan Cities, and part of the forest of this case is designated as the development restriction area, and the use of the forest of this case is legally restricted. In such a case, the use restriction under the above laws cannot be used as justifiable grounds under the above Enforcement Decree. Further, it is clear that the circumstance that the temporary quarrying of the forest of this case is technically and physically impossible does not constitute a case where there is a justifiable reason under the above Enforcement Decree.

In this case, since the above mistake of the court below did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, it will return to the absence of reasons.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)