(a) Meaning of “land directly used for the business, such as a company” subject to the exemption from the aggregate land tax under subparagraph 2 of Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act, and whether the grave base, spawned forest, and spawned land correspond to it (negative);

B. The meaning of “organization for religious and religious purposes” as stipulated in the legal provision of the above “A”

(a) The term “land directly used for the business, such as a company” subject to the exemption from the aggregate land tax under subparagraph 2 of Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act means the land actually used for the business, such as a company building, which is the facilities or the site of the company, and is actually used for the business, such as a company building, and the land cannot be deemed as the land actually used for the business, only for the grave

B. According to each provision of local tax law, in order not to impose aggregate land tax on the land directly used by the “organization for religion and religious purposes”, the organization is not a non-profit entrepreneur for the purpose of public service.

(b)Article 234-12 subparagraph 2(b) of the Local Tax Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7487 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1106) 92Nu3281 delivered on November 10, 1992

Jeonju-gun-gun, Jeonsung-gun, Jeon Sung-gun, Jeon Sung-gun, Kim Jong-tae

Hanam Market

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu1555 delivered on February 27, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of supplementary appeal stated in the briefs submitted after the lapse of the time limit for submitting the appellate brief are to the extent of supplement in case of

The court below acknowledged the following facts: the plaintiff is a male clan composed of 20 years old or older from among the descendants of Jeonju-gun, Chosung-gun and his descendants for the purpose of protecting friendship and efficiently preserving, preserving, and preserving all species of property, such as a tombstone, Cho Jong-gun, Cho Jong-gun, and Chuncheon-gun's cemetery, etc. among the descendants of Jeonju-gun, which is a joint ancestor for the purpose of carrying out the above purpose; there are 15 graves in part of the real estate of this case; the forest land of this case is the base and spaw-gun among the real estate of this case; the plaintiff used the forest land of this case as the base and spaw-gun of the above grave; and the "land directly used for the above land" of this case, which is exempt from the aggregate land tax under Article 234-12 subparagraph 2 of the Local Tax Act, and determined that the plaintiff directly used the above real estate for the above business, the land of this case, which cannot be viewed as the ground and the land directly used for the above.

In light of relevant evidence and records, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles without making a proper deliberation as in the judgment of the court below, and there is no reason to discuss.

Article 234-12 of the Local Tax Act provides that "the land directly used by a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree for religious, religious, charity, academic, art and other public activities" shall be one of the land where no aggregate land tax is imposed. The Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that "the "non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 194-12 subparagraph 2 of the Act refers to a non-profit entrepreneur provided for in Article 79" and Article 79 (1) 1 of the Act provides that "the non-profit entrepreneur provided for in Article 234-12 of the Act refers to the non-profit entrepreneur provided for in Article 79." Thus, in order to impose the aggregate land tax on the land directly used by a religious and religious organization, first of all, it is clear that the organization is not a non-profit entrepreneur for the purpose of public activities (see Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7487, Feb. 22, 199). However, if the court below is legitimately established, it cannot be viewed that the real estate tax of this case is non-taxable.

Therefore, the plaintiff's 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.