The case holding that a corporation is not a non-business land

The purport of the “management of the department store” of the company’s articles of incorporation includes not only the cases where the department store operator directly operates, but also the cases where the department store operator engages in the goods sales business by dividing the place in the shop and collecting the fees therefor. Thus, even in cases where the corporation that runs the department store rents all of the stores to another person, the site of the building cannot be considered as the land that is not directly used for its proper

Article 188 of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Nu244 Delivered on May 25, 1976

ASEAN Corporation, Attorneys Lee Yong-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu761 delivered on May 17, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company in the tax year of this case provide for "construction and promotion of houses and stores" and "production and promotion of motion pictures" and "business of department stores" for its purpose. The facts duly recognized by the lower court are that the Plaintiff Company constructed the building on this site, prepared the form of department stores, used part of the building as the Plaintiff Company's office and store, and leased the remainder to others, and the third and upper floors are leased to others, and the second and upper floors are leased to all department stores, and the third and upper floors are leased to others, and the third and upper floors are leased to others.

However, in the management of the department store, even though there are cases where the person who established it directly runs the department store, the person who runs the business of selling goods as his/her trade name shall pay the fees to the person who sets up the department store, and the person who runs the business of selling goods as his/her trade name, is also a person who operates the department store at a separate place, and if he/she is called the department store management, it can be said that it includes the above two.

If so, it is reasonable to view that the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company should be deemed to be stipulated in the above general usage method, barring special circumstances, as the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company should be deemed to include not only the case where the department store operator directly runs the business, but also the case where the sales business is conducted by dividing the place in the shop and allowing other persons to engage in the sales business, collecting the fees, and allowing other persons to obtain the actual operation of the department store. Therefore, the court below's decision to the purport that the above provisions of the articles of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company should be viewed as above, and that the land of this case shall not be used directly for the Plaintiff's proper purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Nu244, May 25, 1976).

Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 400, 395, and 384 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act as to the bearing of litigation costs. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Hah-hak (Presiding Justice)