Requirements for the re- imposition of registration tax which was exempted from the registration of real estate pursuant to Article 127 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act, Article 94 (1) and Article 79 (1) 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 127 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act, Article 94 (1) and Article 79 (1) 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be exempted from the registration tax, but in order to impose the registration tax again under the above provisions, it shall be limited to the case where the land is not used directly for the business without any justifiable reason within one year from the registration date. In a case where there is a restriction or prohibition on the use under the provisions of the related Acts and subordinate statutes from the registration date of a certain land, there is a justifiable reason for not being used directly for the business, and in such a case, it is reasonable to say that it can be imposed only after the lapse of the above period without any justifiable reason, within one year from the date of cancellation of the restriction or prohibition on use under the related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 127 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act

The Red Interest Scholarship Association, a foundation

The head of Dong/Metropolitan City

Gwangju High Court Decision 91Gu406 delivered on November 14, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 127 (1) 1 of the Local Tax Act, Article 94 (1) and Article 79 (1) 16 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the registration tax shall not be imposed on the registration of real estate to be directly used for the business by a non-profit entrepreneur of a scholarship organization, etc. who has obtained permission or approval from the Government. However, if all or part of the registration is not used directly for the business without any justifiable reason within one year from the registration date, the registration tax shall be imposed on the portion. The registration tax is non-taxation, but it shall be imposed only if it is not used directly for the business without any justifiable reason within one year from the registration date. If the restriction or prohibition of use under the provisions of the related Acts and subordinate statutes was continued after the registration date, there is a justifiable reason that the restriction or prohibition cannot be used directly for the business, and in such case, it is reasonable to impose it as non-use after the expiration of the above period without any justifiable reason within one year from the cancellation date of the restriction or prohibition of use under the related Acts and subordinate statutes.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff corporation is a non-profit foundation established on March 5, 1981 with the authorization of the Minister for Delivery of literature on March 27, 1981 for the purpose of the promotion of human resources, and acquired the land in this case over twice on November 20, 1987 and February 2, 1989 to build dormitories, lectures, etc. of the Scholarship Foundation, which is a target business, and thereafter there is a restriction on the change in the form and quality on the land in this case at the stage of applying for a construction permit, and upon the plaintiff's application for the cancellation of restriction on the change in the form and quality, the construction was canceled on September 23, 1989 and started construction on June 18 of the same year. According to the records, since the land in this case was subject to the restriction on the change in the form and quality of land on October 27, 1986, it constitutes a direct restriction on the use of the land in this case's land within 19 years after the commencement of construction.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as pointed out.

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.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)