Whether forest land, which is a basic property for profit-making use owned by a school foundation, falls under idle land as prescribed by the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (affirmative)

According to Article 9(1), (2), (3)4, and (4) of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), and Article 30(1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13871 of Mar. 30, 1993), land owned by a corporation and not directly used for the corporation’s unique duties without justifiable grounds shall be deemed idle land, and forest land among land owned by a corporation shall be deemed land owned by a corporation as its main business, and forest land shall be directly used for public projects such as business operating educational institutions under the provisions of the Education Act, or for public projects directly used for its unique purposes. However, from among the latter cases, forestry of a corporation shall be excluded from the category of land used for profit-making business of a corporation, and therefore, forest land used for profit-making business of a corporation does not constitute land used for public projects.

Article 9(1), (2), (3)4, and (4) of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993); Article 30(1) and (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13871 of Mar. 30, 1993)

○ ○ Private Teaching Institutes

Head of Jinan District Office

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Gu3141 delivered on May 23, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not directly use the land for the corporation's unique business except for the case where it is directly used for public projects or public projects under the provisions of Article 9 (1), (2), (3) 4, and (4) of the former Land Excess Gains Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4561 of Jun. 11, 1993), and Article 30 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13871 of Mar. 30, 1993), and land owned by the corporation and not directly used for the corporation's unique business without justifiable grounds, and from among the land owned by the corporation, forest land is owned by the corporation's main business, and the land is not directly used for the corporation's own business or for the proper business of public projects under the provisions of the Education Act. However, from among the latter land, the judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as it does not constitute the land of this case's basic property for profit-making.

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 Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)