Whether the land owned by an insurance company to secure the payment of insurance proceeds is non-business land (negative)

According to Article 19 of the Insurance Business Act (Act No. 3043 of Dec. 31, 197), Article 14 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8865 of Feb. 27, 1978), and Article 15 (1) 2 of the same Act, an insurance company can own real estate within the limit of 2/10 of total assets as one of the methods of using property. Thus, the articles of incorporation stipulate that the Plaintiff company, an insurance company, owns real estate for the purpose of securing the payment of insurance proceeds, and if the real estate owned by the Plaintiff company was 12.68 percent of the total assets at the time of the acquisition of the land in this case, the land in this case constitutes the land directly used for the original purpose

Article 112 of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 19 of the former Insurance Business Act (Act No. 3043, Dec. 31, 1977); Article 14 subparag. 2 and Article 15(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act (Presidential Decree No. 8865, Feb. 27, 1978)

Supreme Court Decision 78Nu402 Decided March 13, 1979

Dong Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and letter-post notice

Changwon Market

Daegu High Court Decision 82Gu30 delivered on January 18, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, pursuant to Article 19 of the Insurance Business Act (Act No. 3043 of Dec. 31, 197), and Articles 14 subparagraph 2 and 15 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 8865 of Feb. 27, 1978), the Plaintiff corporation operating insurance business and the same insurance company can own real estate within the limit of 2/10 of total assets as one of the methods of using assets. In full view of the above provisions, the insurer shall interpret that the real estate owner in preparation for securing the payment of insurance proceeds is also the one of the methods of using the assets. Based on macro evidence, the court below's determination that the Plaintiff company owned real estate for the purpose of paying insurance proceeds as one of the purpose of its business, including this case's land at the time of its acquisition constitutes 12.68% of total assets of the Plaintiff company, and that the Plaintiff company did not directly own the land within the scope of 17th of this case's decision.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)