Where a corporation which runs a housing construction business has already acquired land, the construction of which is prohibited pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes for the purpose of constructing a tenement house, whether there is a justifiable reason for not using such land for the proper purpose business (negative)

If the instant land that the Plaintiff Company acquired for the purpose of building and selling in lots was already prohibited from the construction of the apartment house pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes at the time of its acquisition, the Plaintiff Company, which is engaged in the construction and construction of the instant land, shall be deemed to have investigated the laws and regulations on the possibility of housing construction before acquiring the instant land, barring any special circumstances. The prohibition of the construction of the apartment house pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes is in a state already occurred before the Plaintiff acquired the said land, and thus, it shall not be deemed as a justifiable reason for not

Article 112-2 (1) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-3 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 12028, Dec. 31, 1986)

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on August 1, 200

Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu14795 delivered on July 5, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff constructed a tenement house and constructed a house for three years from August 22, 1984 to December 18, 198, by acquiring six parcels of land located in the Gyeonggi-do Seobuk-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do from 29,643 square meters and building a house for the purpose of selling it in lots. However, the plaintiff's failure to use the land of this case for the proper purpose business is due to the prohibition of its use pursuant to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, revoked the defendant

However, even according to the decision of the court below, since the land was already prohibited from the construction of the apartment house at the time when the plaintiff company acquired the land, the prohibition of the construction of the apartment house pursuant to the related Acts and subordinate statutes has already occurred before the plaintiff acquired the land, so it cannot be viewed as a justifiable reason for not constructing the apartment house with this reason.

The court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case and found it erroneous that it could sell the land in lots by constructing a apartment house, and on the premise that the plaintiff was engaged in housing construction and construction as pointed out in the shape of the above decision or the final appeal, and therefore, it should be viewed that the plaintiff investigated the law about whether it is possible to construct the land of this case before acquiring the land of this case, barring any special circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a special circumstance to recognize that the plaintiff had been well aware of such fact, notwithstanding the above circumstances. Thus, the court below's judgment was erroneous by interpreting a legitimate ground as stipulated in the above related Acts and subordinate statutes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for appeal pointing this out.

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 by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)