Land used directly for the proper purpose of a corporation and land for non-business use of a corporation under the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973)

According to Article 180 subparagraph 1 (4) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973) and Article 131 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Presidential Decree No. 6672, May 5, 1973), if a corporation as of the starting date of payment of property tax as of the starting date of payment of property tax in 1974 did not directly use its own land for its own proper purposes, such as leasing it to a third party, it shall be subject to property tax for non-business use, regardless of whether it is land annexed to a corporation's building.

Article 180 subparagraph 1 (4) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973) Article 131 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Gwangju Rice Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 77Gu19 delivered on May 11, 1978

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the property tax of 1974 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

According to its reasoning, the court below found that the defendant imposed property tax on the plaintiff on Sep. 21, 1976 on Sep. 21, 1976, on Sep. 21, 1976, on the Dong-gu ( Address 1 omitted), 301 of 423 of 156 and 111 of 15 of 156 (hereinafter referred to as this "this case's land"), which was owned by the plaintiff, on Sep. 1, 1976, 1974, 1975 and 1976, and 9,38,452 of 1976, the total area of the land owned by the plaintiff company was 1,346 of 272, and the land attached to the plaintiff company including this case's land was not owned by the defendant for non-business purposes under the premise that it did not exceed 1,346 square meters of 1,197-14 of 167 of 197.

First, according to Article 180 subparagraph 1-4 of the Local Tax Act (Law No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973), which was enforced until December 31, 1974, and Article 131 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 6667, May 5, 1973), the land that a corporation does not directly use for its proper purpose is a non-business land of a corporation. Thus, if the Plaintiff did not directly use the land for its proper purpose as of the commencement date of payment of property tax in 1974, such as leasing it to another company, regardless of whether it is a corporate building's land, this case's land is subject to property tax for non-business use regardless of whether it is a corporate building (the second decision of the court below is justified for non-business use without misunderstanding the legal principles as to the remaining land for non-business use under the Local Tax Act No. 7532-15, Dec. 16, 1975).

Furthermore, in full view of the provisions of Article 180 subparagraph 1-3 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2743 of Dec. 27, 1974), Article 131 (2) proviso and subparagraph 4 of the Enforcement Decree thereof (Presidential Decree No. 7532 of Dec. 31, 1974), and Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule thereof (applicable from the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 165 of Feb. 21, 1975, Jan. 1, 1975), the term "land for non-business use of a corporation" means a site not used directly for its proper purpose as of the date the property tax payment period commences, or the land annexed to a corporation where the total floor area of the building directly used by the corporation becomes more than 1/2 of the total floor area of the building does not exceed 10 times of the building area. Thus, the court below's decision that the land does not affect the non-business use of the corporation in this year is justified and there is no violation of law.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is justified as to the portion of 1974 as above. Accordingly, the part revoking the disposition imposing property tax for year 1974 among the judgment below shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the judgment below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal on this part shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Ahn Byung-soo (Presiding Justice)