[1] Whether "justifiable reasons" under Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act exists in a case where a corporation has imposed a grace period due to a period inevitably required for the execution of construction works although it has performed its normal efforts and promotions (affirmative)

[2] Criteria for determining "justifiable reasons" under Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (whether the internal reasons are included: positive reasons)

[3] The case holding that a "justifiable cause" under Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act exists since it can be deemed that a normal effort has been made to observe the whole process of building construction as a whole

[1] In determining whether non-business land under Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-4(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481, Dec. 31, 1994) is non-business land, if a corporation inevitably needs to carry out construction works despite its normal efforts and implementation, if the period of grace has elapsed due to the unavoidable period, it shall be deemed that there is a justifiable reason for not being used directly for its unique duties and shall be excluded from the scope of non-business land.

[2] "Justifiable reason" under Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act includes not only external reasons that the corporation cannot use for its unique duties, such as prohibition and restriction under the Acts and subordinate statutes, but also internal reasons beyond the grace period due to lack of time to make normal efforts to use for its unique duties. In determining whether there is a justifiable reason, considering sufficient legislative intent of the company, it should be considered whether the corporation is a profit-making corporation or a non-profit corporation, and it is short of the preparatory period required for the use for its unique purpose in light of the purpose of acquiring land, and it should be determined individually in accordance with specific matters.

[3] The case holding that even if there are minor procedural defects in the process of promoting the new construction of a building, there is room to view that a normal effort was made by observing the whole process as a whole, there is "justifiable reason" under Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

[1] Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [2] Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14481 of Dec. 31, 1994) / [3] Article 112 (2) of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-4 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1481 of Dec. 31, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19279 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1363), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu6120 delivered on September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3553) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu1773 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992, 2311), Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8750 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 110), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5257 delivered on December 8, 195 (Gong196Sang, 431) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu19439 delivered on July 29, 193; 194Nu139439 delivered on April 16, 194

Austria department department corporation

Ulsan City Mayor (Attorney Ha Man-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Gu1255 delivered on November 1, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In determining land for non-business use as provided in Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act and Article 84-4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1994. Dec. 31, 1994), the construction of a new building to be directly used for its unique duties cannot be deemed to have been directly used for its unique duties, as pointed out above. However, if a corporation has imposed a grace period for inevitable reasons to carry out construction works despite its normal efforts and implementation, it shall be deemed that there are justifiable reasons for not being used for its unique duties and shall be excluded from the scope of land for non-business use (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu19279, Mar. 25, 1994; 95Nu6120, Sept. 26, 1995). 195, the term "justifiable reasons" in this context means that a corporation cannot individually use the land for non-profit corporation as well as its own purpose or its own reason for non-profit corporation's specific purpose, 97.

According to the court below's lawful determination, the plaintiff acquired the land in this case on June 9, 1989 and July 22, 198 of the same year and requested geological surveys immediately to construct a new building on the ground. The result of the geological survey shows that the plaintiff planned to build a complex building on the 5th underground and 20th floor above the ground and applied for construction permission on March 20, 190 on the basis of the design and applied for construction permission on March 28, 199. The construction permission was granted on the condition of the development of groundwater from the defendant on May 28, 199. The construction permission was commenced immediately after the commencement of the development of groundwater, but it was revealed that the initial geological survey was erroneous during the development process, and it was requested the defendant to change the construction of the 17th floor above the ground and the 17th floor above to the 19th floor under Article 12 (1) of the Building Act, and that the construction permission was postponed by the plaintiff on May 19, 1991.

Although there is no procedural defect, such as an error in the execution of geological survey, in constructing a new building on the instant land, it is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff made a normal effort to use the instant land for business purposes. Thus, the lower court’s judgment that determined to the same purport is justifiable as it is in accordance with the above legal doctrine, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of misapprehending the legal doctrine on the land for non-business use of a corporation or making a judgment contrary to the precedents of the party members, as discussed above. There is no reason to view all the arguments.

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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)