[1] In a case where a certain land was acquired to build a new factory, but a change of the situation was caused, and a factory was not constructed originally intended, a factory is to be newly built entirely different from that of the factory, and a factory is newly built on both land by acquiring another land adjacent to the land already acquired according to the need, such as the size of the other factory, etc., whether the adjoining land constitutes an object of exemption from acquisition tax under Article 276 (1) 1 (a) of the former Local Tax Act (affirmative)

[2] The standard for determining whether a taxpayer’s filing of a tax return constitutes an obligatory invalidation in a tax return method

[3] The case holding that when a person liable for tax payment receives a reply to the tax authority that the land subject to exemption from acquisition tax after filing an application for exemption from acquisition tax before the voluntary report and payment, where the person liable for tax payment makes a voluntary report and payment inevitably due to the tax evasion due to neglect of voluntary report and payment, problems arising from the disposition on default, etc., and the filing of a civil lawsuit through an objection, request for examination and administrative litigation

[1] The term "land first acquired for the construction of a new factory" under Article 276 (1) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997) refers to the land first acquired for the construction of a new factory. The term "land for the business to be acquired within five years from the date of its acquisition" means the land additionally acquired for the construction of a new factory or the land additionally acquired for the extension or accessory facilities of an existing factory. Thus, in order to construct a new factory, a new factory is completely separate from the original one after the acquisition of a specific land for the construction of a new factory due to the change of circumstances, and a new factory is acquired adjacent land to the land already acquired according to the need of the new factory's size, etc., and it constitutes a "new construction of a new factory" under Article 276 (1) 1 (a) of the former Local Tax Act, unless there are special circumstances such as where another land is already acquired for the construction of a new factory.

[2] Acquisition tax is a tax by the method of tax return, and in principle, in which a taxpayer's tax base and tax amount are determined specifically by the act of filing a return (limited to the case where a tax office does not file a return from a taxpayer), its payment act is the performance of specific tax liability confirmed by the return, and the State or a local government holds the tax amount paid based on the final tax claim as above. Thus, unless a taxpayer's return is void as a matter of course due to a significant and obvious defect, it shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment. Here, as to whether the act of filing a return constitutes void as a matter of course due to a significant and apparent defect, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy for the act of filing a return shall be considered as a basis for the act of filing a return, and at the same time, the specific circumstances leading to the act of filing a return shall be determined reasonably and reasonably.

[3] The case holding that when a person liable for tax payment receives a reply to the tax authority that the land subject to exemption from acquisition tax after filing an application for exemption from acquisition tax before the voluntary report and payment, where the person liable for tax payment inevitably filed a voluntary report due to the tax evasion due to neglect of voluntary report and payment, problems arising from the disposition on default, etc., and then led to a civil lawsuit following an objection, request for examination, and administrative litigation, the act of filing a report constitutes a grave and obvious defect, which

[1] Article 276 (1) 1 (see current Article 276 (2) 1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794, Dec. 22, 1994; Act No. 5406, Aug. 30, 197) / [2] Article 741 of the Civil Act; Articles 1 (1) 7 and 5 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act; Articles 1 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Articles 1 (1) 7 and 5 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act; Articles 1 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Du13980 delivered on September 17, 1999 (Gong1999Ha, 2247) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da31419 delivered on February 28, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1455) Supreme Court Decision 95Da4917 delivered on August 23, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2829), Supreme Court Decision 99Da23284 delivered on July 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 178), Supreme Court Decision 97Da20373 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong198Sang, 264)

Geumho Petroleum Chemical Co., Ltd. (Seoul New Law Firm, Attorney Park Dong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Jeonnam-do (Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na26479 delivered on January 19, 1999

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

1. As to whether the acquisition of land No. 2 in this case is exempted from acquisition tax

Article 276 (1) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4794 of Dec. 22, 1994, and amended by Act No. 5406 of Aug. 30, 1997, hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that a person who intends to construct a new factory in an industrial complex designated under the Industrial Sites and Development Act and an inducement area under the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act shall be exempted from acquisition tax, registration tax, property tax and aggregate land tax as prescribed in the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 1 provides that "the real estate falling under any of the following items shall be exempted from acquisition tax and registration tax," and subparagraph 1 provides that "the land first acquired for the new construction of a factory, the land for business acquired within five years from the date of the acquisition of the land referred to in item (a) (excluding the case of acquiring an existing building):

The provision that the above provision is exempted from acquisition tax on the land for factory, etc. first acquired in an industrial complex and an inducement area is the legislative purpose of facilitating the attraction of the factory to the industrial complex, etc. In light of such legislative purpose, "land first acquired to construct a new factory" referred to in subparagraph (a) of the above provision means the land first acquired to construct a new factory, and "land for business acquired within five years from the date of acquisition of the land" means the land additionally acquired to construct a new factory or the land for business additionally acquired for the extension or appurtenant facilities of the already established factory, so it shall be deemed that a new factory is completely different from that of the first acquired land after acquiring a specific land for the new construction of a new factory due to change of circumstances, and where another land adjacent to the land already acquired is acquired in accordance with the need of another factory's size, etc., and it constitutes "new construction of a new factory" referred to in subparagraph (a) of Article 27 (1) of the above provision, unless there are special circumstances such as that the land already acquired has been used as an incidental land.

On July 26, 1989, the court below recognized that the plaintiff acquired the land No. 2 of this case and exempted the acquisition tax, but did not establish the factory for more than two years, and that the acquisition tax was collected on the wind, separate from the above factory, and the plaintiff constructed a Kabble factory on March 28, 1995 with the approval of use of the land No. 2 of this case and newly constructed a Kabble factory and constructed a Kabble factory on May 2, 1996 with the adjacent land No. 1 of this case constructed a mutually complementary heat power plant with the Kabble factory and constructed a Kabble factory, and the adjacent land No. 2 of this case was acquired on May 2, 196. The court below recognized that the land No. 2 of this case was for the new construction of the 1 land No. 1 of this case and it was difficult for the plaintiff to construct the 1 of this case to construct the Gabble factory, and it is not the incidental land No. 2 of this case No. 2 of this case. 1 of this case. 2 of this case.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just ( so long as the circumstances above do not affect the conclusion of this case as to whether the factory constructed on the land No. 1 and the land No. 2 of this case is a single factory or a single factory, and it does not affect the conclusion of this case). Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no misapprehension of the legal principles as to the object of exemption

2. As to whether the instant reporting act is null and void as a matter of course

As a matter of principle, acquisition tax is a tax by the method of tax payment, in which a taxpayer voluntarily determines a tax base and the amount of tax and, in principle, the tax liability is specifically determined by the act of filing a return (limited to cases where a tax office does not file a return from a taxpayer), its payment act is the performance of specific tax liability confirmed by a return, and the State or a local government holds the amount of tax paid based on a final tax claim. Thus, unless a taxpayer’s return is void as a matter of course due to a serious and obvious defect, it shall not be deemed as unjust enrichment immediately. Here, as to whether the act of filing a return constitutes void as a matter of course due to a grave and obvious defect, the purpose, meaning, function, and legal remedy for the act of filing a return shall be examined and determined on an individual basis of the specific circumstances leading to the act of filing a return at the same time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da31419, Feb. 28, 1995; 95Da417, Aug. 23, 1996).

The court below held that the acquisition tax on the land No. 2 of this case is exempted, and that when the tax authority made a voluntary declaration prior to the payment of voluntary declaration and received a reply that it is not eligible for exemption after filing an application for exemption of acquisition tax with the tax authority prior to the payment of voluntary declaration, it was inevitable to pay taxes by reason of the evasion of the additional tax due to neglect of voluntary declaration and payment and the problems arising from the disposition on default, etc., and then it constituted the civil litigation of this case through the filing of an objection, request for examination and administrative litigation, and in light of these circumstances, there is a significant and obvious defect that there is no room for recognizing the ability to determine the obligation to pay taxes, and therefore

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)