In a case where the Korea Land Corporation and the Korea Land Corporation were merged into the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, and leased land owned by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation prior to the merger to Gap corporation, etc. for a period of 20 years, and the competent administrative agency imposed property tax, etc. on the Korea Land and Housing Corporation prior to the merger by dividing the said land into property tax subject to separate taxation before the merger, and then imposed property tax, etc. on the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the disposition of imposition, including property

Article 182 (1) 1 (see current Article 106 (1) 1), 3 (e) (see current Article 106 (1) 3 (e) (see current Article 106 (1) 3 (e)) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010); Article 132 (5) 1 (see current Article 102 (5) 1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21744, Sep. 21, 2009); Article 9 (1) 1 (see current Article 8 (1) 1 (see current Article 8 (1) 1 of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act) of the former Local Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 9706, May 22, 2009)

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Law Firm Apex, Attorneys Park Gi-ro et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The head of Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Nu24858 decided May 1, 2013

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 182(1) of the former Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that "land subject to property tax on land shall be classified into general aggregate taxation, special aggregate taxation, and separate taxation." Article 182(1)1 provides that "land subject to property tax on land excluding land owned by a person liable to pay tax as of the date of taxation base, which is subject to separate aggregate taxation or separate taxation, shall be subject to general aggregate taxation, and land falling under any of the following among land owned by a person liable to pay tax as of the date of taxation," and Article 182(1)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 21744, Sep. 21, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be one of the land subject to separate taxation under Article 132(5)1 of the same Act.

Meanwhile, Article 9(1) of the former Korea Land Corporation Act (amended by Act No. 9706 of May 22, 2009 and enforced on October 1, 2009; hereinafter the same) provides that “acquisition, development, reservation, management, supply, and lease of land” under subparagraph 1 of Article 9(1) of the former Korea Land Corporation Act as one of the business conducted by the Korea Land Corporation.

2. Based on its adopted evidence, the lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Korea Land Corporation and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation were merged with the Plaintiff on October 1, 2009 by Korea Land and Housing Corporation enacted by Act No. 9706 on May 22, 2009; (b) the Korea Land Corporation, the implementer of the Incheon Free Economic Zone Cheongbu Development Project, as the site for foreign investment inducement facilities, owned by the Korea Land Corporation on June 29, 2007; (c) the investment 3, 4 block, 5, 6 block (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”), each of which was 20 years, set the lease period on June 20, 207, and the extension of the lease period after the expiration of the lease period.

Furthermore, in light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that: (a) inasmuch as it cannot be deemed that the Korea Land Corporation was scheduled to sell the instant land after leasing it, the instant land should be deemed land owned by the Korea Land Corporation for the purpose of leasing it; (b) distinction between the “supply of the instant land” and the “lease”; (c) the “supply” under Article 132(5)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which provides for the scope of its business from the “supply” under Article 9(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Korea Land Corporation Act, is not included in the “lease” which is not accompanied by the disposal of ownership; and (d) insofar as it is difficult to view that the Korea Land Corporation or the Plaintiff and its establishment purpose or business are the same, since Article 132(5)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which does not provide for the “lease” as the land subject to separate taxation, cannot be deemed as violating the purpose of the comprehensive aggregate taxation system, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of the instant land in question was lawful.

In light of the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of land subject to separate taxation under Article 132 (5)

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)