The head of Australia, a foundation foundation, the Round Association of Korea (Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Head of Busan Metropolitan City/Dong

April 18, 1990

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant's disposition imposing property tax on the plaintiff as of December 17, 1988 9,043,210 won, urban planning tax 5,973,010 won, 3,484,650 won, 1,808,410 won, 6,94,960 won, 5,685,920 won of business place tax in 1988, and imposition disposition imposing acquisition tax as of March 15, 1989, and imposing tax of KRW 93,813,740, which is imposed by the defendant as of March 15, 1989, shall be revoked. The litigation cost shall be borne by the defendant.

With respect to the plaintiff operating the New Flag Hospital, which is a general hospital for the building on the ground of the 432 ground of Busan Dong-dong 432, the defendant imposed the property tax, urban planning tax, fire-fighting facilities tax, defense tax, and business place tax as stated in the purport of the claim with respect to the 7856.11 square meters of the existing building for the hospital, and the fact that the plaintiff imposed the acquisition tax as stated in the purport of the claim with respect to the newly constructed building on May 31, 198, which was acquired as the above hospital building on May 31, 198.

Therefore, the plaintiff corporation is a nonprofit foundation under Article 32 of the Civil Act established for the purpose of owning and managing land, buildings, and fixtures necessary for the missionary activities of the head of Australia and supplying assets necessary for the operation of the missionary activities of the Republic of Korea. In order to achieve the above purpose, all of these projects are actually conducted through the above new technology hospital operated by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the above existing buildings or new buildings which are the physical facilities of the hospital are not subject to the provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 107, subparagraph 1 of Article 184, Article 238-2, Article 242, Article 245-2 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act, and Article 79 (1) 1, Article 21, Article 136, and Article 207 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Act, and Article 207 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act are not subject to the provisions of subparagraph 2 of the above Article 9 of the Local Tax Act (Article 260 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).

Therefore, first of all, the provisions of related Acts and subordinate statutes stipulate that property tax, urban planning tax, fire-fighting system tax, acquisition tax shall not be imposed on the property directly used for the business or on the acquisition of property directly used by a non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by the Presidential Decree for religious activities, religion, charity, art, or public services, and Articles 107 (1), 184 (1), 238-2, 242, and 245-2 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act provide that business place tax shall not be imposed on the non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by the Presidential Decree for the above public services, and Articles 79 (1), 136, and 207 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that the scope of non-profit entrepreneur prescribed by the Presidential Decree in each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes shall be provided to the above non-profit entrepreneur, at least 1) organizations for religious activities and foundation for educational purposes, and medical corporations established under the Medical Service Act which directly or indirectly use the property for religious purposes and education purposes (3).

However, according to the above 1, 4, 5, 6-1, 7, 8, 11, 12-1, 12-1, 3, 13-1, 4, 13-1, and 4 of the witness testimony of the above 12-2 hospital, which are no dispute over the establishment of the above 1, 4, 5, 6-1, 1, 1, 2, and 9-1, 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the above 10-1, 9-1, 16-1, 2, 3, and 9-1, 9-1, 16-1, 2, 3, 3, and 9-1, 1, 1, 3, 3, and 9-1, 1, 1, 3, and 5-1, 1, 1, 3, 196-1, 1, 3, 196-1, 1, .

Finally, the plaintiff corporation constitutes "medical corporation under the Medical Service Act" under Article 79 (1) 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act where no property tax, etc. is imposed pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act (the Presidential Decree No. 686 of Sep. 20, 1973). Thus, the plaintiff corporation cannot impose property tax, etc. on the building for the hospital of this case directly used for the proper purpose business of the medical corporation like the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's tax disposition in violation of the non-taxation provision cannot be seen as being unlawful in this point. The plaintiff corporation's head of the public health center, which established the general hospital or hospital at the time of the enforcement of this Decree, did not establish the medical corporation under Article 32 of the Civil Act (the Presidential Decree No. 686 of Feb. 16, 1973), but established the medical corporation under the above Article 79 (1) 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act without undergoing separate procedures under the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Service Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition.

May 16, 1990

Judges Cho Jin-General (Presiding Judge)