[1] The meaning of "a corporation under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act does not directly use the land for the purpose business within a certain grace period from the date of acquisition of the land"

[2] The case holding that the land constitutes non-business land under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act where the corporation did not use the land for the purpose business after acquiring the land and sold it to another person within the grace period under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and the land is not subject to subparagraph 2 of

[3] The meaning of "justifiable cause" under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[4] The case holding that there is no justifiable ground for not using the land acquired within the grace period under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act for the purpose of business

[1] Where a corporation under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 198) fails to directly use the land for the purpose of business without justifiable grounds within a grace period from the date of acquiring the land, it includes not only cases where the period has passed since the date of acquisition without justifiable grounds, but also cases where the land was not used for the purpose of business by selling it to others within the grace period without justifiable grounds after acquiring the land.

[2] The case holding that where a corporation sells land to another person within the grace period under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998), without using land for the purpose business after acquiring it, such land constitutes non-business land under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31,

[3] "Justifiable reasons" under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998) refers to the external reasons that the corporation cannot use in mind, such as prohibition, restriction, etc. by the law. In principle, the internal reasons of the corporation are limited to the case where the corporation goes beyond the period without the negligence of the corporation because it does not have sufficient time to make a normal effort and promote to use in its unique duties. This difference with the justifiable reasons under Article 84-4 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

[4] The case holding that there is no justifiable ground for not using the land acquired within the grace period under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998) for the purpose of business solely on the ground that the land was insolvent due to an IMF situation even though there is no specific statutory restriction

[1] Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998) / [2] Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998); Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15614 of Dec. 15, 198, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Nu712 delivered on December 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 355), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6078 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1066) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1773 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2311), Supreme Court Decision 98Du8414 delivered on September 4, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2455) (Gong1999, 2358), Supreme Court Decision 98Du15139 delivered on October 8, 199 (Gong1999, 2358), Supreme Court Decision 2005Du2905290 delivered on October 24, 200)

Commercial Construction Co., Ltd.

Head of Yang Gun

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu6345 delivered on April 12, 2001

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held on November 17, 1997 that the plaintiff purchased the entire land of this case, the land category of which was 1,590,000,00 for the purpose of using it as a new site for apartment construction on 17, 1997, and paid 160,000 won to the non-party on May 31, 198 under the agreement to pay 1,430,000 won on the date of the contract, and the remaining 9,000 won was 0,000 won for the first 9,000,000 won for the first 0,000 won for the first 9,000 won for the purchase and sale of the entire land of this case to the non-party 2, which was 0,000 won for the first 9,000 won for the first 9,000,000 won for the first 9,000 won for the first 9,000 won for sale.

Furthermore, according to the above facts, the court below held that, since the plaintiff sold the land of this case to Nonparty 3 at the request of Nonparty 2 and completed the registration of ownership transfer at the same time, it did not directly use the land category within one year after the plaintiff acquired the land of this case and sold it without direct use for its unique duties, it is reasonable to see that there was a justifiable reason under Article 84-4 (1) 2 and (3) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of July 16, 1998), since it was inevitable to avoid this problem, the plaintiff did not pay the remaining amount to Nonparty 2 due to serious financial difficulties and insolvency due to the national economic crisis, which was an imminent national economic crisis that could not have been anticipated at the time of the purchase of this case, and therefore, the land of this case does not constitute acquisition tax and corporate non-business land subject to non-business.

2. However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

A. First, as of July 1, 1998, the term of the grace period of the land for non-business use of a corporation under the previous provisions has not elapsed, and as of July 16, 1998, Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 159835, Dec. 31, 1998; Presidential Decree No. 15982, Dec. 31, 1998) shall be applied.

Meanwhile, where a corporation does not directly use the land for the intended business within a grace period from the date of its acquisition without a justifiable reason, it includes not only the expiration of the grace period without any justifiable reason, but also the case where it does not use the land for the intended business without any justifiable reason after its acquisition for the intended business within the grace period (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6078 delivered on February 14, 1992). Thus, if the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case and sold it to Nonparty 3 within the grace period under Article 84-4(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree without using it for the intended business, it constitutes acquisition tax and subject matter for non-business use (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84-4(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree). However, if the Plaintiff sold it to Nonparty 3 within the grace period under Article 84-4(1)4(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree without a justifiable reason, it shall be deemed that the land of this case constitutes 9-19(1) of the Enforcement Decree for non-business use.

B. According to the facts and records established by the court below, it is clear that the plaintiff, in constructing the housing on the land of this case, immediately after the acquisition of the land of this case, was not used for the purpose of the project, notwithstanding the absence of any specific statutory restrictions, and the court below's justifiable grounds for recognition of justifiable grounds, the circumstance that the plaintiff was faced with serious financial difficulties due to the IMF situation, which was not anticipated at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and eventually, the plaintiff was in default, or was faced with the position to enforce the contract cancellation and the liability for damages, and the sale of the land of this case is merely an internal circumstance of the plaintiff. In full view of these circumstances, the plaintiff was not used for the purpose of the project without justifiable grounds within the grace period under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree from

C. Nevertheless, the court below held that the land of this case does not constitute non-business land of a corporation on the ground that the plaintiff had justifiable grounds for selling the land of this case without directly using it for the purpose business within the prescribed grace period. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on justifiable grounds that are excluded from non-business land of a corporation under Article 84-4(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)