The case holding that the sale constitutes "where the land becomes a non-business land of the corporation" under the provisions of Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191), since there is no justifiable reason for the sale of the land where two months have passed since the corporation acquired the land for the purpose of exchange and it was sold for non-business purpose.

The case holding that the "where a corporation sells land for business purposes for two months after it acquired the land for the purpose of exchange" as provided in Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991) on the ground that it cannot be seen as only temporary or temporary use, and there is no justifiable reason to sell the land.

Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991)

Supreme Court Decision 91Nu12646 Decided February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1066) decided August 18, 1992 (Gong1992, 2785) 92Nu5829 Decided November 10, 1992 (Gong193,154)

Seowon wind Power Machinery Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and 1 other

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu4088 delivered on August 13, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff was a corporation with the business purpose of manufacturing and selling various kinds of machinery, such as transmission wind, etc., and used the land of this case from the Governor of the Gyeonggi-do on June 4, 1990 as the open storage place for the products and raw materials, and sold it to the non-party Electric Cable Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party Co., Ltd.) on August 3 of the same year. However, the land of this case was originally used as the open storage place for the products produced by the plaintiff Co., Ltd. with the permission to occupy and use from January 1, 1986 under the River Act, but the plaintiff and the non-party Co., Ltd. agreed to exchange the land of this case with the non-party Co., Ltd. on March 24 of the same year with the non-party Co., Ltd.'s land of this case after knowing that the plaintiff was the non-party Co., Ltd.'s land of this case.

Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 1991) includes the case where the pertinent land becomes a non-business land of the pertinent corporation and is sold to others without justifiable grounds. Thus, if the facts are as above, the purpose of acquiring the instant land was to exchange a group of lands owned by the Plaintiff and the non-party company, and even if the Plaintiff used the instant land as a temporary and temporary use during the process of realizing the purpose of acquisition, it cannot be deemed as a temporary and temporary use, and it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason in selling the instant land to the non-party company. In this regard, the judgment of the court below that the instant land constitutes a non-business land and thus becomes subject to acquisition tax is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)