(a) Criteria for classifying buildings and appurtenant land used by corporations under the former Local Tax Act into non-business purposes and non-business land;

(b) Methods of calculating the scope of land for lease where a corporation uses part of real estate for rent;

A. According to the provisions of Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981), and Article 75-2 (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369 of Mar. 25, 1982), in a case where a corporation uses less than a half of the total floor area of the building for its proper purpose, the part of the land equivalent to the ratio of the area to the total floor area of the building among the land annexed to the building shall be business and the remaining part shall be non-business land

(b) Article 75bis. 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to calculating the scope of land for lease when a corporation uses part of its real estate for office use and some of it is used for rent.

Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of December 31, 1981), Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369 of March 25, 1982)

Dongyang Industries Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14888 decided May 1, 200

Seoul High Court Decision 86Gu1246 delivered on March 17, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The grounds of appeal are examined as follows. The grounds of appeal are examined to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

According to Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981), which entered into force in the taxation period of the property tax of this case, the term "land for non-business use of a corporation" means the land which a corporation does not use directly for its proper purpose without any justifiable reason as of the starting date of the payment period of the property tax, and pursuant to Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369 of Mar. 25, 1982), which is delegated to determine land not deemed non-business land under the proviso of the same Article (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 369 of Mar. 25, 1982), where the total floor area of the building directly used by the corporation becomes not less than 1/2 of the total floor area of the building, the remaining part of the building's land for non-business use is 97.

In the same purport, the court below recognized the fact that the part of the building directly used by the plaintiff company among the building owned by the plaintiff company as of September 16, 1980 and September 16, 1981, which was the date the payment period of the property tax of this case was commenced, was less than half of the building owned by the plaintiff company, and judged the land equivalent to the calculated ratio of the plaintiff's non-use area to the total floor area of the building of this case as non-business land. The court below's fact-finding of the above judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to non-business land, such as theory of lawsuit

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)