(a) Whether the land annexed to a corporation-owned building in 1973 and 1974, in which the corporation directly uses only a part of the building for its proper purpose, is a land for non-business use of the corporation;

(b) The case holding that a disposition of heavy taxation made on a corporation's land for business as a non-business purpose is void annually;

1. Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 165 of Feb. 21, 1975), which was effective January 1, 1975, provides for the limit of business and non-business use with respect to the land annexed to a building owned by the corporation, the spirit of no taxation without the law in 1973 and 1974, which was before establishing the limit of business and non-business use, and so long as a part of the building owned by the corporation is used for its own purpose, the whole land annexed to the building shall be

2. Since a wrong statutory interpretation and a heavy taxation is imposed on a corporation’s land for business to be non-business purposes, a serious violation of the law is apparent, the said taxation is void as a matter of course.

Article 18(3) and (1) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973); Article 142(1)3 and Article 131 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 6667, May 5, 197); Article 16 of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the Stabilization of Life of People; Article 11(2) and Article 16(2) of the same Emergency Decree (Presidential Decree No. 7042, Jan. 14, 1974); Article 9 of the former Local Tax Act; Article 75-2 subparag. 6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 165, Feb. 21, 1975)

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu203 Decided March 27, 1979, Decision 75Nu244 Decided May 25, 1976

Hongwon Commercial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Attorney Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu19 delivered on July 12, 1978

All appeals by plaintiffs and defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

Since 1966, the Plaintiff owned 5th floor building No. 426.84 on the ground of the instant land from 122 to use only 10 square meters among them as the office of the Plaintiff, etc., and leased 416.84 square meters on the remaining 416.84 square meters, and the Plaintiff’s real estate rental business during the instant taxation period, which was before adding the real estate rental business as a part of the Plaintiff’s objective business, shall be recognized as having not been the Plaintiff’s objective business, after reviewing the documentary evidence and comparison of the fact-finding process, so the above fact-finding is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

The facts are as above, since the part directly used by the plaintiff among the 426.84 square meters of the above building is about 10 square meters and about its own purpose, it is justified in the taxation period of the property tax of Article 180 subparagraph 1 (3) and Article 188 (1) 1 (4) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2743 of December 27, 197), and Article 188 (1) 1 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (Act No. 7532 of December 31, 1974), and Article 181 (2) 4 of the same Act (Act No. 839 of December 31, 1976) and Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act concerning the non-business purpose of the building is about 20 percent of the total floor area of the building which is not directly used for non-business purpose.

It can not be employed because it criticizes the judgment of legitimate original judgment in its independent opinion that erroneously interpreted the related laws and regulations on the imposition of property tax on land.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant’s attorney.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

In a case where a juristic person owns a building on its own at the time of 1973 and 1974 and uses it directly for its own purposes, according to the Acts and subordinate statutes on property tax which were enforced at the time of the establishment of a corporation, the classification and limit of property subject to taxation under the provisions of Article 188 (3) of the former Local Tax Act (Act No. 2593, Mar. 12, 1973) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree and the subsequent provisions of Article 142 (1) 3 and 131 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Act No. 667, May 5, 197) and the above provisions of Article 16 (2) of the Local Tax Act concerning the land for non-business purposes are not prescribed in Article 17 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and the land for non-business purposes within the scope of 196 of the said Act and are not directly used for non-business purposes.

In addition to the above rulings, members had previously taken the view that if a corporation uses part of its own building directly for its original purpose on or before December 31, 1974, it constitutes a direct use of the entire land for its original purpose (see Supreme Court Decision 75Nu244 delivered on May 25, 197; 77Nu167 delivered on September 13, 197). Although all of the above decisions were used by a corporation for 1/2 or more of the total floor area of the building at issue, there was no provision of Article 75-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act which provides that the size of the land used by the corporation should be 1/2 or more of the total floor area of the building for non-business purposes at the time of the enactment of the above 7th anniversary of the above 7th anniversary of the total floor area of the building without any justifiable ground for non-business purposes, it is difficult to interpret the above 1310th of the total floor area of the building at issue.

As to ground of appeal No. 1

As the court below duly decided in 1973 and 1974, although the land of this case does not fall under non-business activities of a corporation, it is a serious violation of the law, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding that the land of this case falls under the interpretation of the law, and that the land of this case is the land of the plaintiff-owned building and that part of the building of this case is used directly by the plaintiff for its own proper purpose. Ultimately, among the disposition imposing the property tax of this case, the part of this case in 1973 and 1974, which is regarded as land for non-business activities of a corporation and imposed heavy taxes on the land of this case is significant and obvious, and thus the disposition of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the invalidation and revocation of administrative disposition such as theory.

The arguments are not appropriate for the party members judgment, and therefore are groundless.

Therefore, all appeals by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ha-hun (Presiding Justice)