Basic assets of a school juristic person for non-business use;

If a refugee has constructed a debt-free building without permission since the 6.25 incident occurred before the establishment of the Plaintiff corporation, but the refugee does not make any effort for the profit of the land, it is a non-business land subject to property tax.

Article 184 of the Local Tax Act, Article 131 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

School juristic person Park Young-chul

The head of Busan Dong-si

All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The disposition that the head of Dong-dong imposed KRW 799,50 as property tax for the second term in October 1, 1974, KRW 799,50 as property tax for the second term in 1974, and KRW 31,980 as urban planning tax, and the disposition that the head of Dong-dong imposed KRW 849,255 as property tax for the second term in 1974 as property for the second term in 1974, and that imposed KRW 29,849 as urban planning tax, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The Plaintiff’s educational foundation owns 239,40 square meters in total of 16 copies of land as shown in the attached list, and 533 square meters in total of 17 copies of land as shown in the attached list in the attached list in the Dong-dong, Busan, Dong-dong, Busan, and the Defendants have no dispute between the parties concerned over the fact that the Defendants imposed property tax and urban planning tax, such as the entry in the claim as of October 1, 1974, on the ground that each of the above lands within their jurisdiction is a non-business land of the Plaintiff corporation.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful, since the Plaintiff’s site is a basic property for profit-making purposes owned by the Plaintiff’s educational foundation, as prescribed by Article 184(1)3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 131 and Article 196 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act. Thus, the disposition of this case is not unlawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the disposition of this case was unlawful. The Plaintiff’s legal representative did not directly provide the Plaintiff’s basic property to the Plaintiff’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party-appellant’s non-party-Appellant’s non-party-Appellant’s non-party-Appellant’s non-party title 1 through 3 (Change of organization, authorization, branch order, articles of association), evidence 5-1 through 8, evidence 6-7-1 through 4, and evidence 8-1 to the date of establishment of the Plaintiff’s non-party-party-Appellant’s non-party’s non-party’s basic property.

According to the above facts, although the land of this case is the basic property of the plaintiff corporation, it can not be taxed because it falls under the provisions of Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Article 131 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides that the corporation operating the academic purpose and other public interest business shall not impose property tax. The land of this case is not the land directly used for its proper purpose. The plaintiff's attorney again stated that the land of this case is the land for non-business purposes under Articles 11 (2) and 16 (2) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the stability of people's lives (Presidential Decree No. 7042) of Article 9 (1) of the Act on the Classification and Scope of Property under Articles 11 (2) and 16 (2) of the Presidential Decree on the classification and scope of property for non-profit business purposes (Presidential Decree No. 7042). The land for non-profit business purposes, which is operated by the non-profit corporation for public interest purposes, is the land for non-business purposes of the corporation.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this case from the ground that the land of this case is the basic property of the plaintiff corporation is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)