Whether it constitutes an extension of a factory subject to taxation under Article 112(3) of the Local Tax Act, which is newly constructed by adding facilities for manufacturing ready-mixed in an existing cement factory (negative)

Although cement manufacturing was listed in the cement manufacturing business as a factory subject to heavy taxation under Article 47-2 and attached Table 3 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (No. 221 of Jan. 12, 1977) but there was no separate provision for ready-mixed manufacturing business. However, the new provision for non-metallic mineral products manufacturing business in attached Table 3 was newly established by the amendment of Jan. 23, 1979, but the revision of Jun. 10, 1980 clearly stated that non-metallic mineral products manufacturing business is included in cement manufacturing business, it cannot be interpreted that ready-mixed manufacturing business is included in cement manufacturing business, considering the differences between cement manufacturing business and ready-mixed manufacturing business in light of the progress of the amendment of Jun. 10, 1980 and the contents of cement manufacturing business. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff company newly constructed ready-mixed facilities in the existing cement factory around June 1978 and it cannot be viewed that it is an object subject to taxation of the above Article 12 of the Local Tax Act.

Articles 112(3) and 110-2(2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 47-2 and 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 221 of January 12, 197)

Supreme Court Decision 81Nu142 Delivered on June 28, 1983

Dongyang Industrial Co., Ltd. (Attorney Shin Chang-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Special Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 83Gu238 delivered on March 29, 1984 (Supreme Court Decision 81Nu142 delivered on June 28, 1983)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 112 Paragraph (3) of the Local Tax Act provides that the acquisition tax rate for the acquisition of a taxable object for business to newly build or extend a factory in a large city prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be 50/100 of the tax rate under Paragraph (1). According to Article 110-2 and Paragraph (2) of the same Act applied mutatis mutandis, the scope of and applicable standards for factories to which heavy tax rates apply shall be determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Thus, according to the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (No. 221 of Jan. 12, 1977), which is enforced on Jun. 12, 1978 with manufacturing facilities for ready-mixed in an existing cement factory, the plaintiff company's new construction of cement products shall not be deemed to fall under the category of cement manufacturing business under Article 47-2 of the Local Tax Act (No. 26 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs) and it shall not be deemed to be unlawful for the plaintiff's new construction of cement products.

This paper argues that the judgment of the court below is legitimate because the plaintiff's 55 ready-mixed vehicles, which are registered to transfer from Gangwon-do to Busan factory location, fall under the factories prescribed in the attached Tables 3 and 65 of Article 47-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, which are listed as the type of factories subject to heavy tax rate under the "Place for Manufacturing, Processing, Repair, etc. with certain facilities with a license from the competent authority for operating business", and are subject to heavy tax rate because they fall under the factories prescribed in the attached Tables 3 and 65 of Article 47-2 of the above Enforcement Rule, and are subject to heavy tax rate. However, the defendant's taxation is asserted to be lawful, but the judgment of the court below is argued to be attacked by the court of final appeal on new facts that were not based on the tax assessment of this case, and that there was no assertion to the court below, and the "factory falling under the attached Tables 3 and 65 of the above Enforcement Rule."

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

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju