The Korea Tourism and Development Corporation (Attorney Lee Dong-dong, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Mayor for the racing market (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

July 24, 1991

1. The defendant's property tax amounting to 51,71,570 won for land in 1987, urban planning tax amounting to 2,00 won, 2,074,90 won for urban planning tax, 10,342,310 won, property tax amounting to 51,71,570 won for land in 1988, 2,074,90 won for urban planning tax, 10,342,310 won, 190, 10,342,310, 197, 5,690, 230, 234, 260, 234, 790, 168, 368, 196, 30, 196, 196, 30, 196, 196, 30, 196, 198, 196, 1305, 294, 25, 196

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Factual basis

In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 3-1 to No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4-1 to No. 3, Eul evidence No. 7-1 to No. 3, Eul evidence No. 8-1 to No. 3, Eul evidence No. 12-8 to No. 12-12, Eul evidence No. 13-6, and Eul No. 14-5, the following facts can be acknowledged, and no other counter-proof exists.

A. The Minister of Construction and Transportation has established a annual plan from 1972 to 20 years in the area of the Hanmun-dong, Seomun-dong, Seomun-dong, and has implemented the project for the development of the Hanmun-dong Tourism District. On April 4, 1975, the Tourism Complex Development Promotion Act was enacted and promulgated on April 4, 1975, it transferred the project to the Plaintiff, which is a corporation that the International Tourism Corporation invested in full for the management and operation of the Seo Seo

B. Accordingly, on December 10, 1985, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the implementation of national tourist facilities with a golf range of 280,082 square meters in size of 6 holes and 1302.78 square meters in the building with a total of 430,108 square meters on March 10, 1985 and 52 square meters on March 21, 198, the Plaintiff opened a golf course with six holes around December 17, 1986 for the convenience of tourists and the promotion of the tourist complex, and opened it first in order to promote the convenience of tourists and the tourist complex as of February 17, 1987.

C. Meanwhile, on November 6, 1987, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the change of a tourist complex development project with the purport of expanding three holes among the general golf courses. On June 20, 198, the Plaintiff completed the construction of a golf course with three holes on June 20, 198. On December 12, 198, the Plaintiff filed an application for the change of the trade name to “Gyeongju Tourism Development Corporation Bolare” by expanding the size of the facilities to 430,108 square meters or nine holes, and filed an application for the change of the trade name to “Gyeongju Tourism Development Corporation Bolare”.

D. However, not only at that time, but also at the time of the closure of the argument in this case, the Plaintiff’s racing and tourism complex development project was not completed.

E. However, the Defendant: (a) deemed that a simplified golf course owned by the Plaintiff is not subject to the exemption of property tax under Article 184-2(2)9 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3878 of Dec. 31, 1986; Act No. 4128 of Jun. 16, 1989; hereinafter the same) and was not subject to the exemption of property tax under Article 184-2(2)9 of the former Local Tax Act; and (b) imposed and notified the property tax for land from September 19, 1989 to 1989 as indicated in the order, and the pro rata property tax for building from 1987 and 1988; (c) imposed and corrected the land portion for land in 1988 as of September 29, 198; and (d) imposed and notified the property tax for land in 1989 as of October 10, 1989.

2. Both claims;

The defendant asserts that Article 184-2 (2) 9 of the former Local Tax Act (this Act was enforced from January 1, 1987, and the previous Tourism Complex Development Promotion Act was repealed with the enforcement of this Act) of the Tourism Promotion Act only means real estate owned by a project implementer under the Tourism Promotion Act in the course of implementing a tourism complex development project. Thus, it is not subject to taxation exemption for real estate which is provided for use and profit-making by completing a unit development project even for a part of a whole development project. Therefore, inasmuch as the plaintiff completed a golf course on the land owned by the plaintiff for a development project and is using and profit-making from it, it cannot be subject to property exemption because it is not a project implementer for a tourism complex development project, but a golf course owner's property as a golf course owner. Accordingly, the plaintiff argues that the golf course facility is not subject to property exemption because it is owned by the plaintiff designated as an implementer of the Seocho-gu Tourist Tourist Complex Development Project and is subject to property exemption under the former Local Tax Act.

3. Determination

A. First, the legal provisions on the object of taxation exemption, such as the property tax under the Local Tax Act, are deemed to begin with;

Article 184-2 (2) of the former Local Tax Act provides that property falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be exempted from property tax, and subparagraph 9 thereof provides that "the same shall not apply to the real estate owned by the implementer of a tourist complex development project under the provisions of the Tourism Complex Development Promotion Act for the purpose of a tourist complex development project: Provided, That this shall not apply to the property for use and profit-making by the purchaser after a sales contract has been already concluded." Meanwhile, the provisions on this exemption of property tax are applied mutatis mutandis to urban planning tax under Article 238-2 of the same Act, and Article 242 of the same Act to common facilities tax, and Article 4 (1) 12 of the Defense Tax Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the defense tax by multiplying the amount of property tax to be paid under the provisions of the Local Tax Act by

B. Therefore, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s golf course facilities are eligible for exemption from property tax under the above provisions.

(1) According to Article 2 of the Tourism Promotion Act, the term “tourist operator” means a person who has registered or has been designated as a tourist business pursuant to the provisions of this Act; the term “tourist resort” means an area suitable for tourism and recreation because he has natural or cultural sightseeing resources; the term “tourism complex” means an area designated by this Act as an area for tourism and recreation; the term “tourism complex” means an area for tourism hub which focuses on the development of tourist resources and tourist facilities, etc. to promote the promotion of the tourist among tourist resorts; the term “development plan” means an area for development and management of tourist facilities necessary for the promotion of the protection and use of a tourist resort or tourist complex; the term “development project” means a project for the implementation of a development plan; the term “development project” means a person who has obtained approval for a development project”; and the term “project operator may sell or lease all or part of the land created, developed tourist facilities, and resources facilities to another person; and shall take necessary measures for the management and operation of a tourist resort.

In light of these provisions, there is no provision or material as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s registration as a tourism business operator in order to operate a golf course, which is one of the tourist facilities belonging to a tourism complex, appears to be a means to manage some of the tourist facilities which have been developed. On the contrary, there is no provision or material as to the fact that the Plaintiff’s registration as a tourism business operator in order to manage some tourist facilities by a project operator who has obtained approval for a tourism complex development

Therefore, the plaintiff still holds the status as a project operator under the Tourism Promotion Act, unless the tourism complex development project is fully terminated or the project implementation permission is revoked after the registration of a small golf course as a tourism business operator.

(2) Next, the concept of ownership of tourist facilities for the development of a tourist complex includes profits from the use of tourist facilities for the development of a tourist complex, barring any special circumstance, and even in light of the legislative forms and the proviso of Article 184-2(2)9 of the Local Tax Act as seen above, it is anticipated that the legal provisions are expected that the implementer of a tourist complex development project directly uses the property and owns the property for the development of a tourist complex. Thus, it is consistent with the aforementioned interpretation, barring any special circumstance, that the concept of use and profit-making includes a case in which some of the golf courses are opened and collected from the Plaintiff, as in the instant case, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff partially completed or opened the golf course facilities, it cannot be deemed that the ownership of the said facilities is not for the development of a

(3) The purpose of the Tourism Promotion Act is to contribute to the promotion of tourism by creating conditions for tourism, developing tourism resources, guiding and fostering the tourist business, while the legislative intent of the provisions of the Local Tax Act requires enormous funds for a tourist complex development project over a long period after the entire permitted tourist complex is created. As such, the purpose of the provisions of the Local Tax Act is to guide the tourist business by exempting the property tax from the whole of the permitted tourist complex until the development of the tourist complex is completed. Article 2 of the Addenda of the Local Tax Act provides that the deadline for application of the provisions on exemption of property tax Article 184-2 of the Local Tax Act shall be up to December 31, 191. This supplementary provision provides that the purpose of the Act is to contribute to the promotion of tourism, even if the purpose of the enactment of the Tourism Promotion Act is to develop tourism resources, and to guide and foster the tourist complex development project, it shall be deemed that the real estate is not subject to the new establishment of a new tourist facility and it shall be included in the whole building subject to exemption of property tax unless it is interpreted as a building subject to exemption under Article 12 of the Local Tax Act.

Therefore, in this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge that a sales contract for the golf course facilities owned by the plaintiff was concluded and a purchaser took profits from the use of the golf course facilities, the facilities are subject to exemption from taxation, such as property tax.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, although the plaintiff's golf course facilities of this case are subject to exemption from taxation such as property tax, the defendant's taxation disposition of this case against the plaintiff is deemed unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation of this case is justified, and the costs of this case are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

September 4, 1991

Judges Song Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)