A. The meaning of "use" under Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

(b) Whether a corporation engaged in the sale and purchase of real estate and civil engineering and construction projects can be deemed the possession of land for housing construction if it performs part of the housing construction works on land subject to taxation, although it has a long term without permission;

A. Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that "land for non-business use of a corporation" means land that a corporation does not directly use for its proper purpose without justifiable grounds as of the date of commencing the payment period for non-business use of a corporation. "Use" means the use that does not violate the law, and the case where a corporation is left unattended while performing an unauthorized construction work without permission without permission, and the reasons such as business failure, etc. do not constitute a justifiable reason for non-business failure.

B. The Plaintiff Company, which is the purpose of the business of real estate sale and civil engineering construction, completed a design to build a apartment house on the land subject to taxation and received the deliberation of the construction plan. Although the Plaintiff Company was an unauthorized construction but actually performed part of the construction of a apartment house, barring special circumstances, such as a disguised act for tax evasion, the Plaintiff Company is holding the said land as land for housing construction, and the said land does not constitute land for housing construction solely on the ground that the Plaintiff Company did not have a real estate sales performance.

Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, Article 188 (1) 1 (3) of the Local Tax Act, Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

South Do Tourism Corporation

The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu312 delivered on February 4, 1982

The judgment below is reversed;

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff, a corporation which directly purchased the land subject to taxation of this case for the purpose of this case, and owned it for the purpose of purpose, and applied for the deliberation of the construction plan to build the above land for the purpose of July 12, 1979, and passed a deliberation on the condition that it is possible to construct the above land as a residential and parking lot improvement zone, but it is possible to supplement defects such as modification of the design, etc., but the above land was not used for the purpose of non-business purpose of this case for which the construction permit was suspended on September 19, 1980, without any justifiable reason for the reason that the plaintiff did not use the land for the purpose of non-business purpose of this case for the purpose of this case's 142 Paragraph (1) Item 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act for the purpose of non-business purpose of this case's 16th anniversary of the date of payment of the property tax for non-business purpose of this case.

However, the court below's determination that the period of holding land for non-business use exceeds 3 years is legitimate. The plaintiff's real estate sale and civil engineering construction project as recognized by the court below is one of the target projects. The plaintiff completed the construction plan to build apartment houses on the land of this case, and completed the construction plan deliberation, and if the plaintiff actually performed part of the construction work on the land of this case, unless there are special circumstances such as tax evasion, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff owns the land of this case, and it shall not be determined that this land does not fall under the land for housing construction only on the ground that the plaintiff did not have the actual record of real estate sale. According to the "Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act", since the court below's determination that the land for housing construction for which 2 years have not passed since the acquisition of the corporation did not fall under the land for non-business use, the court below should have determined that the property tax rate of 18 days has not passed since 2 years have passed since the acquisition of the land of this case's property tax rate of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young