(a) Relationship under Article 84-4 (1) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act;

B. Whether a church's partner constitutes "employee of a corporation" under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

A. The land acquired by a corporation is not subject to heavy taxation of acquisition tax under Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994), regardless of whether it falls under land annexed to a building as provided in Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and whether it falls under land for non-business use as provided in paragraph (1) of the same Article, etc.

B. A church's member is a church's employee, who is a "employee of a corporation" under Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

A.B. Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Article 84-4(4)3 A of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[Defendant, Appellant] Chocheon-gu, Attorney Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellee

Tocheon-gun

Daegu High Court Decision 94Gu577 delivered on January 13, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining relevant evidence based on the records, the court below is justified in finding that the non-party, who is the member of the inspection of the plaintiff church, is the employee of the plaintiff church, and that the plaintiff church had used the building of this case as the residential housing of the above non-party, since the time when the plaintiff church acquired the land and the building of this case, and there is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter the same) provides that the acquisition tax rate for non-business land of a juristic person prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall be 750/100 of the general tax rate. Article 84-4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the scope of non-business land of a juristic person. Paragraph (1) of the same Article (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides for the scope of non-business land of a juristic person and Paragraph (2) of Article 112 (2) of the same Act provides that land for non-business purpose of a juristic person shall not be used directly for its unique business within one year from the date of its acquisition without any justifiable reason. Paragraph (4) 3 of the same Article provides that a juristic person's land shall not be deemed land for non-business purpose, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of the same Article 2).

In light of the facts duly admitted by the court below and the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the land in this case constitutes the land annexed to a building as stipulated in Article 84-4 (4) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, regardless of whether it falls under the land for non-business use as stipulated in paragraph (1), the land in this case cannot be deemed land for non-business use of the plaintiff church, and therefore the acquisition of the land in this case does not constitute the land subject to heavy taxation of acquisition tax under Article 112 (2) of the same Act. The judgment below is just, and there is no error

In addition, a church's member cannot be considered as a non-taxation subject to acquisition tax under Article 107 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act because it is not necessary to conduct the church's business, and the acquisition of the pertinent land and buildings used for his residence does not fall under the non-taxation subject to acquisition tax under Article 107 subparagraph 1 of the Local Tax Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu824, Feb. 25, 1986; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu2608, Nov. 14, 1989); however, the above decision of the court below is not possible to regard the pertinent land as non-business land of the plaintiff church, and its acquisition does not fall under the non-taxation subject to acquisition tax under Article 112 subparagraph 2 of the same Act; therefore, the acquisition of the instant land does not fall under the non-taxation subject to acquisition tax under Article 107 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, and it does not constitute a ground for misunderstanding of the judgment of the court below.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)