Whether Article 194-11(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783, Aug. 24, 1989) and Articles 104-10 and 46-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 499, Nov. 13, 1989) are invalid beyond the scope of delegation by this mother Act (negative)

Article 194-11 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783 of Aug. 24, 1989) provides the general criteria for the scope of "high-use duties" pursuant to the delegation provision of Article 234-22 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989) and provides the criteria for the scope of "high-use duties" in accordance with the delegation provision of Article 234-2 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1278 of Nov. 13, 1989) and does not unreasonably reduce the scope of delegation beyond the scope of delegation. In addition, Articles 104-10 and 46-6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 499 of Nov. 13, 1989).

Article 234-22(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989); Article 194-11 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783 of Aug. 24, 1989); Article 104-10 and 46-6 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 499 of Nov. 13, 1989)

Daily Oil Business Co., Ltd., Counsel Kim Si-young

Gyeonggi-do Pyeongtaek Gun and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu8554 delivered on June 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

1. Article 234-22 (1) 2 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989) provides that "All land owned by a corporation or organization and not used directly for the proper business of the corporation or organization without any justifiable reasons as of the tax base date of the large-scale holding tax shall be subject to taxation of the large-scale holding tax, and Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "the scope of proper business under the provisions of paragraph (1) 2 and the standards for direct use shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree", and the subsequent Enforcement Decree of the same Article (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12783 of Aug. 24, 1989) provides that "the proper business of the corporation or organization" shall be subject to the object business under the Acts and subordinate statutes or corporate register and the criteria for judgment under the provisions of Article 194-11 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall not be deemed to be the main business of the real estate selling business, agriculture, livestock industry, livestock industry, or forestry business under the subparagraphs 19-16.

In light of the delegated process and contents of the above provisions, Article 194-11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides a general standard for the scope of its own business pursuant to the delegation provision under Article 234-22(2) of the Local Tax Act, and does not provide a more strict standard for the scope of its own business in the case of real estate trading business, agriculture, livestock industry, or forestry business, and such provision goes beyond the scope of delegation under Article 234-2(1)2 of the above Act and does not unreasonably reduce the scope of its own business in essence. In addition, Articles 104-10 and 46-6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provide that the provisions of the above Enforcement Decree or the Enforcement Rule are within the scope of delegation of the Local Tax Act. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of delegation and the limitation of delegation under the Local Tax Act, such as the principle of no taxation without law.

2. The court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff had previously conducted business purposes on the corporate register as dairy, livestock industry, and livestock industry sales, etc., but registered the change of the purpose business by deducting the livestock industry from dairy and livestock product processing, and the sale, export, import, etc. of livestock products, and held that the livestock industry cannot be viewed as a justifiable ground for not using the land of this case directly for the plaintiff's own business as long as the plaintiff used the land of this case as the land as the land of this case as the land of this case without the plaintiff's objective business. In addition, in light of the legal orders that should be the main business in the livestock industry, it is difficult to view that there is a justifiable ground for not using the land of this case directly for the proper business of the plaintiff, in addition to the case of the livestock industry.

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to legitimate grounds, such as theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

For these reasons, 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.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)