[1] Whether a real estate constitutes a real estate for non-business use under Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act in cases where it falls under each item of Article 84-4 (3) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act by converting it into a subsequent rental use even if it is not for the purpose of lease

[2] In a case where Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act and Article 84-4(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act are stated on the tax payment notice along with the purpose of acquisition tax as to non-business land, and Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act is not clearly stated, whether the defects of the tax payment notice

[1] The purpose of Article 112(1), main sentence of Article 112(2), and Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), and Article 84-4(1) and Article 84-4(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998) is to prevent a corporation from acquiring and holding excessive land for non-business purposes, ice-4(3)1 of the same Enforcement Decree of the same Act. The purpose of Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act is to prevent a corporation from acquiring and temporarily using land for non-business purposes and converting it into real estate for non-business purposes within a certain period and to prevent the acquisition and holding of land for non-business purposes, which requires a corporation from acquiring and renting land for non-business purposes under Article 84-4(3)1 of the former Local Tax Act.

[2] The purpose of Articles 112(2) and 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998) is to prevent the acquisition and holding of land for non-business use by all corporations. Thus, in the course of issuing a tax payment notice, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the duty payment notice merely because it did not specify Article 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act, unless it stated in Article 112-4(3)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998).

[1] Articles 112(1) and (2) and 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4(1) and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998), Article 112(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 14-4(1) and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998) / [2] Articles 1(1) and 25(1), 112(2), and 112-3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1584 of Jul. 16, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Nu9765 delivered on November 27, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 77) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Nu14272 delivered on August 22, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2942)

Master-Name Trade Co., Ltd.

The head of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (Attorney Ansan-il, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu 1326 delivered on July 6, 2000

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

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The purport of Article 112(1) and (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615, Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 112-3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree") and Article 84-4(1) and (3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, which strengthens the standards for determining whether to own or own land for non-business purposes with respect to real estate lease business under Article 84-4(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, is to prevent the acquisition or possession of land in excess of the standards for determining whether a corporation acquires or owns land for non-business purposes, referring to the provision of Article 112-3 of the Act and the provision of Article 84-4(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, which requires the acquisition of land for non-business purposes.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land for lease of real estate.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The purpose of Articles 112(2) and 112-3 of the Act is to restrain the acquisition and holding of land for non-business use by all corporations. Thus, in the course of issuing a tax payment notice, the fact that the land of this case is subject to heavy acquisition tax because it falls under the land for non-business use, and as long as the land of this case is stated in Article 112(2) of the Act and Article 84-4(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, it cannot be said that there is a defect in the tax payment notice merely because it did

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to local tax payment notice, and the Supreme Court decisions cited in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff are different from the case,

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)