(a) Definition of an unreported entertainment restaurant under Article 46-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act;

(b) In cases where a part of a building is an dancing entertainment restaurant, whether acquisition tax is levied heavy on the whole building and land annexed to the building (affirmative);

(a) An dancing entertainment restaurant refers to an entertainment restaurant which provides dancing halls for customers to enjoy dancing at the place of business, regardless of whether or not permitted by the authorities concerned;

(b) Where a place of business is a dancing entertainment restaurant subject to heavy acquisition tax, acquisition tax shall be imposed on all buildings for the place of business and land annexed thereto, as well as on parts used as dancing halls among the place of business and land annexed thereto;

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act; Article 84-3(1)1-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act; Article 46-2(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

5. Judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal

Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu3863 delivered on November 11, 1992

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

1. Judgment on the second ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The lower court: (a) Article 84-3(1)1-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act provides that “1-3 of the same Act provides that “the above-mentioned 1-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-2-2-1-2-1-2-2-2-1-2-2-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-1-2-2-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-1-2-2-2-2-1-2-2-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-6-1-3-2-1-2-1-2-2-1-2-2-2-3-2-2-3-1-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-1-3-2-3-3-2-2-2-3-3-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-2-3-3-3-2-3-3-.

According to relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have erred in finding facts against the rules of evidence as the theory of lawsuit, and even if the above place of business does not have a dancing for not less than 10 square meters and did not receive admission fees from customers, the above place of business has been installed on both sides of the stage facilities, and the above place of business has 27,500 won with the charge for alcoholic beverages and safe-jus basically offered to one customer from customers and 27,500 won, and it can be recognized that the customer can enjoy from the customer and let them enjoy dancing with the space set up in front of the stage. Thus, if the facts acknowledged by the court below are delayed, the above facts and the judgment of the court below is justified, and the above place of business does not constitute an entertainment restaurant under Article 46-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act.

In conclusion, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below on the premise that the determination of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below are criticized or that the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the facts recognized by the court below is not removed.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 1

As long as the court below determined that the above place of business is subject to heavy taxation because it constitutes a studio entertainment restaurant under Article 46-2 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, even if there were errors in the judgment of the court below that the above place of business constitutes studio entertainment, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, since such illegality does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, it is not acceptable to criticize this point.

3. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 3

If the above place of business is subject to heavy taxation as it constitutes an dancing entertainment restaurant, the acquisition tax is imposed on all buildings used for the above place of business and land annexed thereto, and as such, the part used as a dance hall among the above place of business and land annexed thereto is not subject to heavy taxation. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s judgment that determined that the instant tax disposition, which imposed acquisition tax on the whole building used for the above place of business (598.53 square meters) and land annexed thereto (107.11 square meters), is legitimate, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the law, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason

4. Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)