Whether a thermal power plant using coal as its main raw material is whether the land used as a coal treatment plant is empty

The land used by the thermal power plant under the Korea Electric Power Corporation which uses coal as its main raw material for the coal reprocessing plant is the land directly used for the electricity generation business, which is its own original purpose of the said thermal power plant. Therefore, the land is not the “land not actually used” under Article 142 (1) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10633 of December 31, 1981) and it does not constitute the vacant land under the same Article.

Article 9(1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, Article 188(1)13 of the Local Tax Act, Article 238-2 of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 2945), Article 142(1)16 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 9702)

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Gunsan City

1. The disposition of imposition of property tax, etc. against the plaintiff on December 17, 1983 by the defendant

(a) property tax of 7,570,602 won in 1979, urban planning tax of 189,265 won, and defense tax of 1,514,120 won;

(b) property tax of 18,926,694 won in 1980, urban planning tax of 473,167 won, and defense tax of 3,785,338 won;

(C) Each disposition of imposition of 29,809,60 won for property tax in 1981, 662,435 won for urban planning tax, and 5,961,900 won for defense shall be revoked, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant, on December 17, 1983, applied the heavy taxation rate stipulated in Article 188 (1) 1 (iii) of the Local Tax Act to the plaintiff corporation on the ground that the 590 miscellaneous land, 15,642 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") acquired and owned by the plaintiff corporation on February 26, 1963 was not attached to the ground until December 17, 1983, and that it was land within the urban planning zone, and the owner and the plaintiff corporation did not actually use it on the ground that it was land within the urban planning zone (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") and applied the heavy taxation rate stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 188 (1) 1 (iii) of the Local Tax Act on December 1981, 1989, and applied the heavy taxation rate stipulated in each subparagraph of Article 188 (1) 1 (c) of the Local Tax Act on the ground that it was not disputed between the parties concerned.

However, if the title and conditions of the above-mentioned land are used for the purpose of increasing 1 (request for examination), 2 (Intermediate Determination), 5-1, 7-2, 13-2, 3 and 5-2, 4 of the same Act as the witness method of removing the above-mentioned land from 0-1, 9-2, 4 (Request for Examination of Property Tax), 9-2 of the same Act as the witness method of removing the above-mentioned land for the purpose of securing 0-1, 10-2, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 10-7, 200-7, and 5-7, different from the above-mentioned, for the purpose of removing the real estate from the above-mentioned land to 10-6, 20-7, 30-1,000-1,000-7,000-7,000

According to the above facts, since the military power plant, which uses the land of this case as the main fuel, is directly used for the electricity generation business, which is its own purpose, the land of this case is not the "land not actually used" under Article 142 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Enforcement Decree of March 25, 1983), but it does not correspond to the public land of this case, and the land of this case is not the "public land" under Article 9 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by December 31, 1981), Article 238-2 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2945 of December 31, 1976), Article 9 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Article 9 (1) of the Local Tax Act. Thus, since the land of this case is exempt from general property tax and urban planning tax on the land of this case, each taxation disposition of this case is unlawful.

Therefore, since each taxation of this case should be revoked, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)