Appropriateness of a heavy taxation disposition on the land for lease without any rental record of a corporation for the purpose of real estate rental business, etc.

Land for lease of a corporation established for the purpose of real estate rental, etc. shall become land for non-business use regardless of whether there exists any justifiable reason, unless there is any rent record under Article 142 (1) 1 and 8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Law No. 9702), Article 142 (1) 1, 7, and 8

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The head of Dongjak-gu

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of property tax of KRW 2,200,80 as of September 16, 1981, of KRW 62,880 as well as urban planning tax of KRW 62,880 as of KRW 440,160 as of KRW 94,320 as property tax, city planning tax of KRW 62,880 as of KRW 62,80 as of September 16, 1981, and the defense tax of KRW 18,864 as of KRW.

2. The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2's remaining claims are dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs 1, 2 and the defendant is for 20 minutes, and the part arising between the plaintiffs 3 and the defendant is for 1, and the remainder is for 1, respectively, and for 1, the defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 4,830, urban planning tax amounting to KRW 217,323, and 43,465 (the amount as corrected on May 10, 1982), the disposition of imposition of KRW 1,86,840, the property tax amount of KRW 373,368, which was imposed by the Defendant against Plaintiff 1 as of September 16, 1981, and the disposition of imposition of KRW 2,20,80,80, the urban planning tax amount of KRW 62,80, and the defense tax amount of KRW 440,160, respectively.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Determination on the part requested by the Plaintiff 1

On September 16, 1981, the Defendant issued a disposition of imposition of property tax of KRW 652,050, urban planning tax of KRW 14,490, and KRW 130,410 on the ground that the Plaintiff Company was a non-business land owned by the said Plaintiff for the holding period of KRW 1/2 of KRW 161,00,00,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 130,000,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 1/6,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 1/6,00,000,000,000,000,00 KRW 1/2,00,000,000,000,00 KRW 1/65,00,00.

The plaintiff asserts that the share of the above land is less than 1/6 (26.83 square meters) and it was not used for the original purpose of the plaintiff corporation because the building site area of the building method was less than the building site area of the building. Thus, the plaintiff company's assertion that the building site area of the above land was less than 1/6 (26.83 square meters), Gap's evidence 1-5 (written opinion), Gap evidence 1-6 (written opinion), Gap evidence 1-1-8 (written decision), Gap evidence 1-9 (written decision), Gap evidence 1-9 (written decision), Gap evidence 1-4 (written decision) and the whole purport of the oral argument is that the plaintiff company did not use the above land for the purpose of the building's own purpose (it can be deemed that the real estate lease business was established), Gap's evidence 1-5 (written opinion), Gap evidence 1-6 (written decision), Gap evidence 1-1-6 (written decision), Gap evidence 1-9 (written decision).

I think, according to the main sentence of Article 142 (1) 1 and 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663, Dec. 31, 1981; hereinafter the same shall apply), the land which a corporation does not directly use for its own purpose (the purpose business under the Act or the articles of incorporation) as of the starting date of the property tax payment period shall be land for non-business use of a corporation as of the starting date of the property tax payment period. On the other hand, pursuant to subparagraph 8 (b) of the above item, the land owned by a corporation which carries on real estate lease business as of the starting date of the property tax payment period for the first year shall be 30 days before the starting date of the property tax payment period for the previous year, if the income from the land owned by the corporation for rent is less than 10/100 of the land price for non-business use of a corporation, so even if the plaintiff did not have access to the surrounding land, it cannot be said that there are no justifiable reasons for the whole land area of the plaintiff to use for non-business use.

2. Determination on the part of the plaintiff 2's claim

There is no dispute between the parties regarding the facts that the Defendant imposed property tax amounting to KRW 1,86,840 on September 16, 1981 and KRW 373,368 on Plaintiff 2 on September 16, 1981, on Plaintiff 2, who was officially owned by the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 1 omitted) to KRW 331 square meters.

On October 1978, the plaintiff leased the above land to the non-party 1 with the legitimate authorization from the authorities of the non-party 2 corporation, the vice president of which is the vice president. However, he requested the return of the above land since he used the above land within one year without obtaining the authority's lawful authorization. Thus, the non-party 3 did not unlawfully occupy and occupy it, and it was delivered after the starting date of the property transfer lawsuit against the Dong, and it was delivered to the defendant after the starting date of the property transfer lawsuit against the non-party 3. Thus, the defendant alleged that the disposition of this case was unlawful since the land was over 200 square meters and the defendant did not actually use the land, and even if the land for which the transfer lawsuit is pending, it was not prohibited from being used by the court, and thus the defendant's disposition of this case was justified.

According to the above-mentioned provision, if the non-party 1 did not have any dispute over the establishment of the land and the non-party 2's land cadastre No. 3, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 3, the non-party 1's testimony of the non-party 3 (except for the portion which is not believed later), and the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 8's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1'.

3. Determination on the part claimed by the plaintiff 3

On September 16, 1981, the Defendant: (a) recognized Plaintiff 3 on September 16, 1981 as not only the actual site as of the date of commencing the property tax in 1981, but also the actual site as of the date of commencing the property tax in 1981; (b) imposed property tax amounting to KRW 2,200,80; (c) the urban planning tax amounting to KRW 62,80; and (d) the defense tax amounting to KRW 440,160 on the Plaintiff; and (c) did not dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff was notified.

While the Plaintiff was designated as a prospective site for road construction in 1976 and was unable to use at will by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff set up a road in Seoul Special Metropolitan City in early 1980 and opened a road in the middle of 1980, and was unable to use without changing the form and quality of the land without changing the form and quality of the land. However, in order to change the form and quality of the land, approximately KRW 5,00,000, including subway public bonds, etc., the Plaintiff applied for changing the form and quality of the land at around August 1981 and applied for the change of the form and quality to be completed at present. Thus, the Plaintiff’s application for change of the form and quality was not actually used by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s claim that the disposition of this case was unlawful by recognizing the land as a planned site for which the above land was excluded from the public land does not constitute “land for which three years have not elapsed from the date of changing the form and quality” under Article 142(1)1

The plaintiff is subject to property tax at a higher rate than that of the general land. The purpose is to indirectly compel the owner of the land neglected to use the building or other fixtures on the land although it could economically use them, so it can contribute to the national economic development by using the land as it is. Therefore, even though the owner of the land fully uses it according to the use of the land, it is possible to use it as much as possible, and it is subject to heavy taxation as it is the first 3 (Notice) evidence No. 3, No. 3-4 (Permission), No. 5 (Postponement of Construction), No. 3-6 (Postponement of Construction), No. 5), No. 10-100, No. 5 (Do), No. 5 (Do), No. 5), No. 6 (Do), and No. 6 (Do), and No. 97). The plaintiff's land form and quality change within 1-20, no dispute over the establishment of the land at the first 8-year construction site.

In this case, even if the land at the time of the disposition of this case is not included in the land to be excluded from the vacant land under the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and the same Enforcement Rule, and it is fair to use it, as seen above, the above land is in a situation where it can not be used without changing the form and quality of land due to the change of the road through the construction of the road in Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the time of the disposition of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that there was a justifiable reason to not use the land even if the plaintiff did not actually use the above land, and the disposition of this case was made by applying the heavy tax rate to the land as a vacant land, and thus, it is unlawful to the extent of the disposition of this case, even if the plaintiff did not actually use the land after obtaining permission for changing the form and quality of land on August 24, 1981.

Furthermore, I examine the tax amount.

Therefore, when the bearing tax of property tax and urban planning tax is calculated by deeming the above land as a general land that is not a public land, 62,880 won for property tax, 62,880 won for urban planning tax, and 18,864 won for defense tax, as shown in the attached calculation sheet.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiffs' claims of this case seeking revocation on the premise that each of the dispositions of this case is illegal, the claims of plaintiffs 1 and 2 are dismissed, without merit. Since the plaintiff 3's claims are justified only within the scope of the above recognition, it is reasonable to accept them, and the remaining claims are without merit, and it is so dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Judge)