The case holding that the land acquired by a corporation is not used directly for its unique duties and its sale within five years is for external reasons, and there are justifiable reasons for not using it directly for its unique duties within the period under Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and for selling it within five years after its acquisition.

The case holding that the land acquired by a corporation is not used directly for its unique duties and its sale within five years is for external reasons, and there are justifiable reasons for not using it directly for its unique duties within the period under Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act and for selling it within five years after its acquisition.

Articles 112(2) and 112-3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 84-4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Lee Dong-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea District Heating Corporation (Attorney Lee Byung-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Daejeon Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu3436 delivered on October 15, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff was requested from the Minister of Construction and Transportation on October 24, 1987 to review the integrated energy supply business of the 19-year area as indicated by the Minister of Construction and Transportation, the Central Land Expropriation Committee's approval, and the Mayor of Daejeon Metropolitan City and Chungcheong Do Governor's approval from June 4, 1989 to July 5, 198. However, the plaintiff acquired each of the above land as a heat ledger for the above business, but the construction of power plants necessary for the above project from the end of May 1989 to the residents of Daejeon Metropolitan City and Seo-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City is high seas and it is difficult to supply the above land to the Minister of Construction and Transportation on the ground that the construction of the above project would cause high seas and undermine the residential environment. The plaintiff's opinion on the change of the land use plan of the 19-year area to the above 19-year area of the 19-Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City and the above change of the land.

The facts are as above, since the plaintiff could not use each of the lands of this case directly for its unique business and the sale within five years could not be done voluntarily by the plaintiff, there is a justifiable reason for the plaintiff to sell each of the lands of this case within five years after he acquired the land for its unique business within the period stipulated in Article 84-4 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act, and there is no other reason for the plaintiff to sell the lands of this case within five years after he acquired it. As such, there is a possibility for using each of the lands of this case for other purposes than the construction of a new power plant for the unique purpose of the plaintiff corporation, or there is a reason for the plaintiff to use the land of this case for other purposes, or to implement a business after obtaining approval in advance by a unilateral plan without sufficient consultation with local residents and related agencies, and there is a reason for the plaintiff to own the land of this case, or that the land of this case was sold much more than the acquisition value without undergoing

The judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 112(2) or Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 112-3 of the Local Tax Act. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)