Whether there is a justifiable reason under the Local Tax Act, which could escape from acquisition tax, in cases where, even if it was impossible to use land due to statutory disability, it could have been easily known if it was known or paid attention to the acquisition of the land (negative)

Even a non-profit incorporated foundation that carries out a business with public interest, if it knew that there was a legal disability that cannot be used directly for the business or its unique duties within one year from the time the land was acquired, or even if it was not known that there was little attention, the land was acquired under the circumstances where the existence of such disability was easily known, and if it was not used directly for the business or its unique duties within one year after the acquisition due to the same reason, unless there are special circumstances, such as that there was a possibility of sufficiently resolving the disability under the Acts and subordinate statutes that existed before the acquisition, and that the land was not used for the business for any other reason that was unexpected even if it was resolved by endeavoring to solve the problem, the cause of disability under the Acts and subordinate statutes cannot be a justifiable reason that could be exempt from acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act.

Articles 107 subparag. 1 and 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994); Articles 79(1)16 and 84-4(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994); Article 84-4(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12739 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2447) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12739 delivered on March 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1645) Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6901 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2650)

The Korea Youths Association, the Incorporated Foundation, the Korea Youths Association (Attorney Cho Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Bupyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu39898 delivered on April 1, 1998

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Summary of the judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was established with the approval of the Government for the purpose of owning and managing the land, buildings, and other property necessary for the various business conducted by the CA Association No. 1400, 197, 197, 197, 40, 197, 97, 197, 197, 40, 197, 197, 196, 4, 197, 197, 197, 196, 4, 197, 197, 4, 197, 197, 4, 197, 4, 197, 196, 4, 197, 196, 4, 197, 196, 4, 197, 196, 4, 197, 19, 4, 197, 4, 197,

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the records, the court below's finding that the plaintiff was aware of the fact that the YMCA hall was not a religious facility at the time of acquiring the land of this case, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In determining the existence or absence of "justifiable cause" under the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994) and Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994), the determination on a specific case shall be based on the following specific cases: considering the public interest performed by a non-profit entrepreneur as well as the legislative purport of imposing acquisition tax; the legislative purpose of the acquisition tax; the legal and de facto disability and degree of disability that cannot be used for the purpose of the purpose of the acquisition of land; whether the corporation has made a serious effort to use the land for the purpose of the purpose of the project; whether the relevant land was attributable to the administrative agency; and whether there was

However, even if the plaintiff is a non-profit incorporated foundation that carries out a business with public interest, it seems that there was a legal disability that cannot be used directly for the business or its unique business within one year from the time of acquiring the land in this case, and even if he was aware of it, even if he was aware of it, he did not pay little attention, he acquired the land in this case under the circumstances where the existence of such disability is easily known, and it was not used directly for the business or its unique business within one year after the acquisition due to the same reason, barring special circumstances such as where there was a possibility of sufficiently resolving the disability under the laws and regulations that existed before the acquisition, and where it was not used for the business due to any unexpected reason even though it was predicted that it was not used directly for the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Nu6901, Jun. 30, 195; 9Nu219, Jul. 14, 199).

Therefore, the 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)