Whether the manufacturer of automobile painting is a factory in attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (Act No. 13249, Jan. 14, 1991) that is excluded from the acquisition tax subject to Article 47-2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 510

In light of the raw materials, process, product function, characteristics, utility, etc., it is reasonable to view that the manufacturing business of the car painting room is not the manufacturing business of finished products itself, but the manufacturing business of the goods is the manufacturing business of structural metal products that is relatively simple finished products used for structures such as construction, etc. rather than the "building metal board business" under Article 38133 of the Korean Standard Industrial Classification Number 38133, and it falls under the "building metal product manufacturing business that is not classified yet" of the same number 38139. The above business falls under the category 8 (1-3-7) of factories in attached Table 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 510 of July 26, 1990), but it falls under the category 8 (1-3-7) of factories in attached Table 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act of January 14, 1991).

Article 112(3) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4415 of Dec. 14, 191), Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 510 of Jul. 26, 1990), attached Table 3, attached Table 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (repealed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 13249 of Jan. 14, 1991), attached Table 2)

subsidiary Co., Ltd.

Head of Busan Metropolitan City North Korea

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu2120 delivered on February 21, 1992

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

As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the automobile painting of this case manufactured by the plaintiff is a box with 4.6m wide, 6.8m high, 3.3m wide, and its manufacturing process is the part of metal plates located in the plaintiff's factory by cutting, killing, saving, drilling, painting, painting, painting, etc., only the component of the body of a box at the plaintiff's factory, and that it constitutes a type of manufacturing business 19.14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (amended by Act No. 2913 of the same Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, excluding the parts purchased from the outside, from 19.3m high, 2,20 or more of the above automobile painting, etc. from the place of manufacturing business to be installed at 1.4m high, and ultimately, it constitutes a type of manufacturing business 9.14m high, 200 or more of the same Article 19.14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act.

However, in light of its raw materials, process, function, characteristics, utility, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s painting manufacturing business falls under the “structured structural metal product manufacturing business” under Article 38139 of the Korea Standard Industrial Classification No. 3813 of the above Enforcement Rule, rather than falling under the “structured structural metal product manufacturing business” under Article 47-2 of the above Enforcement Rule, but falls under the category 8 (1-3-7) of factories listed in attached Table 3 of the above Enforcement Rule No. 47-2, but it does not fall under attached Table 2 of the above Enforcement Rule No. 112(3) of the Local Tax Act, and thus, it is subject to acquisition tax and acquisition tax provided for in Article 112(3) of the same Act, as it does not fall under the category of factories listed in attached Table 3 of the above Enforcement Rule No. 47-2.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the Korean Standard Industrial Classification No. 1 and the subject of acquisition tax, and it is clear that the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment. The reasoning is with merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.