[1] Criteria for determining "justifiable reasons" under Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[2] The case holding that there is no justifiable reason for a corporation established for the purpose of housing construction business to not directly use the land acquired for the purpose of housing construction within 4 years from the date of acquisition

[1] Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 112(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998) (current deletion)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8750 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1110), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6901 delivered on June 30, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2650), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5257 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 431 delivered on March 12, 1996), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18314 delivered on March 12, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1301 delivered on August 22, 197), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1139 delivered on August 24, 200 (Gong1997Ha, 2937 delivered on October 10, 297)

The Housing Industry (Attorney Park Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

The head of Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine;

Gwangju High Court Decision 2001Nu174 delivered on November 7, 2002

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

Article 84-4 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15982 of Dec. 31, 1998; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act") provides that "justifiable cause" shall include an internal reason beyond the grace period due to the absence of time for a corporation to make normal efforts to use its own business as well as external reasons that can not be done in mind, such as prohibition and restriction under the Act and subordinate statutes. Furthermore, in determining whether there is a justifiable reason, it shall be sufficiently considered that the corporation is a profit-making corporation or a non-profit corporation, the preparation period required for using its own business in light of the purpose of acquiring land, the long-term period required for using its own business in light of the purpose of acquisition, the reason and degree of disability of the corporation, whether the corporation has made a serious effort to use the land for its own business, whether the corporation has a reason for the grace period for its own business, and whether the land was not used for the same reason before the acquisition of the land.

According to the facts and records established by the court below, the plaintiff is a corporation that carries on housing construction business, etc. for 194 to November 30, 1994. The plaintiff acquired eight lots of land (hereinafter referred to as "land") including 3,326 square meters in Gwangju-dong, Gwangju-dong, 294 from July 15, 1994 for the purpose of housing construction. The plaintiff was unable to construct apartment houses or multi-household houses with 4 and 5 stories for 9 years because the plaintiff was designated as a natural green area at the time of the acquisition of the land in this case. The plaintiff was 198 square meters for the purpose of the construction project of this case for 94 square meters and 94 square meters and 98 square meters for the purpose of the construction project of this case for 194. The plaintiff was allowed to construct apartment houses on the land in this case for 198 square meters and 94 square meters for the purpose of the construction project of this case for 194.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff did not use the land of this case directly for the purpose of business within the grace period, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate grounds for non-business use of land of the corporation subject to acquisition tax, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)