A. The meaning of Article 84-3 (Ordinance before December 31, 1981) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Ordinance before December 31, 1981) stipulating the scope of land for non-business use means the provision that "direct use for its unique purpose" is used

(b) Whether land donated to a school foundation to meet expenses for expanding school buildings is land for non-business use;

(a) The term “direct use for the proper purpose” in the latter part of subparagraph 3 of Article 84-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by December 31, 1981) which sets forth the scope of land for non-business use of a corporation means the case where the purpose of use of the land in question is directly used for the proper purpose of the corporation in question as stipulated in the Acts

B. In a case where a school foundation, which is the purpose of the establishment of middle and general education and higher education, was donated land to cover the school building expansion expenses, and did not directly use the land for the principal purpose of the school, from the time of acquisition to the time of disposition, it cannot be deemed that the land was directly used for the original purpose of the Plaintiff foundation, even though the land was partially used for the basic purpose of the Plaintiff foundation from the time of acquisition to the time of disposition.

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-3 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Decree before December 31, 1981)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others

Head of Busan Metropolitan City;

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu40 delivered on February 23, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

As to acquisition tax, Article 112 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981) which provides that "within six months from the date of acquisition" (within one year for non-profit public corporations) provides that "land which is not directly used for its proper purpose (the purpose of business under the Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation) without any justifiable reason" but "use directly for its proper purpose (the purpose of business under the Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation)" should be interpreted as "use directly for the proper purpose (the purpose of business under the Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation) of the corporation and directly used for the proper purpose of business under the articles of incorporation of the corporation. Thus, according to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff corporation is a school foundation established for the purpose of conducting general education and higher education, and the non-party corporation did not directly use the land for the purpose of attacking the plaintiff corporation's basic property from the date of acquisition of the land.

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

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)