[1] The criteria for determining whether a public corporation is directly used for its unique duties under the proviso of Article 110-3 (1) of the former Local Tax Act, which is the requirement for exemption from acquisition tax on the acquisition of real estate by public corporation, and whether Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[2] In a case where the acquisition tax exempted for the acquisition of real estate by a public corporation under the proviso of Article 110-3 (1) of the former Local Tax Act does not meet the requirements for collection of acquisition tax, whether the collection of acquisition tax under Article 112 (2) and Article 112-3 of the same Act, which is a provision concerning acquisition tax for non-business land of a corporation

[1] The main sentence of Article 110-3 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191) provides that any property acquired by a so-called public corporation to use directly for its proper business shall be exempted from the acquisition tax, and one of them stipulates that a credit union, credit union federation, and the National Credit Union Federation established under the Credit Unions Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536 of Dec. 31, 191), and the proviso of Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536 of Dec. 31, 191) provides that if the acquired property is not used directly for its proper business without any justifiable reason within one year from the date of acquisition, the exempted acquisition tax shall be collected additionally. In this case, since there is no provision concerning the scope of direct use, it shall be objectively determined based on its actual use in consideration of its business purpose and purpose.

[2] Under the proviso of Article 110-3 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191), acquisition tax exempted for acquisition of real estate by a public corporation shall be additionally collected, and further, acquisition tax by a public corporation shall be additionally collected on a corporation’s land for non-business use, which shall constitute a non-business use of the corporation, under the premise that the person subject to exemption satisfies the requirements for additional collection of acquisition tax first exempted for acquisition tax by heavy tax rate. If the exempted acquisition tax cannot be additionally collected because it does not meet the requirements for additional collection of acquisition tax, it shall not be additionally collected pursuant to Articles 112 (2) and 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act, which are provisions

[1] Article 110-3(1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 191); Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13536, Dec. 31, 1991) / [2] Articles 110-3(1), 112(2), and 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415, Dec. 14, 191)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu8211, 8228 delivered on April 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1903) Supreme Court Decision 95Nu13104 delivered on January 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 825) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu10725 delivered on June 9, 1992 (Gong192, 2164) 92Nu8019 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1318)

Echeon Credit Union

Leecheon-si (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Nu2784 delivered on June 25, 1998

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The main sentence of Article 110-3 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4269 of Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that any property acquired by a public corporation to use directly for its proper business shall be exempted from acquisition tax, and one of the above proviso provides that a credit union, credit union federation, and National Credit Union Federation established under the Credit Cooperatives Act shall provide that if it is not used directly for its proper business within one year from the date of acquisition without any justifiable reason, the exempted acquisition tax shall be collected. In this case, since there is no provision regarding the scope of direct use, it shall be objectively determined based on its actual use relation in consideration of its business purpose and purpose, and there is no room for application of the former Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13034 of Jun. 29, 190; hereinafter the same shall apply) which provides for the scope of non-business land of the public corporation as amended by Presidential Decree No. 13834 of Mar. 14, 1984, 1984).

In addition, the premise that the exempted acquisition tax is collected and the exempted subject falls under the land for non-business use of a corporation again and the exempted subject falls under the requirements for additional collection of acquisition tax by heavy tax rate. If the exempted acquisition tax cannot be collected because it does not fall under the requirements for additional collection of acquisition tax, then the exempted acquisition tax cannot be collected additionally pursuant to Articles 112(2) and 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act, which are acquisition tax and regulations for non-business use of land of a corporation (see Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8019, Mar. 23, 1993).

2. According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff, a corporation under Article 110-3 (1) 10 of the former Local Tax Act, acquired the land of this case within one year after the acquisition of the land of this case, and used the land remaining after subtracting the land as a deposit office and a parking lot for customers and employees. In this case, the court below acknowledged that the above land of this case is being used directly for the plaintiff corporation's own business. Accordingly, the above land of this case did not meet the requirements for additional collection of acquisition tax exempted under Article 110-3 (1) of the former Local Tax Act. However, the above land of this case did not meet the requirements for additional collection of acquisition tax exempted under Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act and Article 84-4 (1) and (3) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which applied the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act to be deemed as the land of the corporation under Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act, which affected the decision of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed without holding any judgment on other grounds of appeal, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)