Whether the Urban Redevelopment Promotion Committee constitutes a non-profit entrepreneur who is eligible for property tax exemption under the former Local Tax Act.

An urban redevelopment promotion committee consisting of owners of land or buildings within the district with the purpose of urban redevelopment as its business shall not be deemed a non-profit entrepreneur with the purpose of public activities, which is non-taxable for the property tax prescribed in Article 184(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 878 of Dec. 31, 1986) and Articles 136 and 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986).

Article 184(1)3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 878 of Dec. 31, 1986), Articles 136 and 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of Dec. 31, 1986)

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu638 delivered on October 25, 1988 (dong)

The highest choice of attorney-at-law at the redevelopment promotion committee for the area No. 1 of Geumcheonsan District

Head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu351 delivered on May 27, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 878 of Dec. 31, 1986) provides that no property tax shall be imposed on the property directly used for the business by a non-profit entrepreneur for religious, charity, academic, art and other public interest as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 136 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12028 of the same Act) provides that "non-profit entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means a non-profit entrepreneur as prescribed by Article 79 of the same Act. Article 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "non-profit entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree" means a non-profit entrepreneur as defined by Article 79 of the same Act and a non-profit entrepreneur as a person for religious, charity, charity, academic, art, medical service and other public interest purposes.

According to the rules and records of the plaintiff committee, the committee for the redevelopment of district No. 1 is composed of owners who own land or buildings within the district with the purpose of urban redevelopment by newly constructing a shopping center at the third, third, third, third, third, third, and third, third, and third, seventy,721 square, in order to improve the living environment, and restore the commercial functions, the committee for the redevelopment of district No. 1 is composed of owners who own the land or buildings within the district with the purpose of urban redevelopment, and the construction cost of the newly constructed market under Article 4 of the Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 55 of the Daegu-gu Urban Redevelopment Act, which is the public announcement of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 344 and the public announcement of Daegu City No. 55 of Article 4 of the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the district No. 1 district no. 5,742.70 shall be the land located in the district and the remaining land (Article 36 of the Regulations) shall be sold to members of the committee for the disposal of the land and the remaining property shall be sold to members (Article 378).

Therefore, the plaintiff committee was established under the Urban Redevelopment Act as of the time of the original adjudication under the Urban Redevelopment Act, and the execution of this project is authorized and supervised by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the head of Si/Gun may, if there is a person who benefits significantly from the execution of the redevelopment project, charge part of the expenses required for the relevant redevelopment project within the scope of the benefits, and if not paid, it shall be collected in the same manner as the collection of local taxes, and the disposition by the implementer shall not be deemed a non-profit entrepreneur for the purpose of the public activities stipulated in Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act and Articles 136 and 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, even in light of the fact that the disposition by the developer is subject to administrative appeal. Accordingly, the plaintiff committee cannot be deemed a non-profit entrepreneur for the purpose of the public activities stipulated in the above Act. Accordingly, the court below

Therefore, without determining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-young (Presiding Justice)