(a) Whether the leased land to another person without using it directly for business purposes of a corporation constitutes land for non-business purposes (affirmative);

B. Whether a disposition of imposition of property tax, etc., which is made by mistake of non-business land as non-business land is null and void (negative)

A. If the land was leased without using it directly for the corporation’s business purpose, it constitutes non-business land of a corporation under Article 188(1)1 Item 3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3488 of Dec. 31, 1981), and Article 142(1)1 Item 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663 of Dec. 31, 1981).

B. Even though a corporation made a mistake as to non-business land and imposed a disposition of property tax, etc., such disposition cannot be a disposition of invalidity.

A. Article 188(1)3 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3488, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 142(1)1 Item 7(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10663, Dec. 31, 1981); Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Dong Mine Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Msan Market

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu7 delivered on May 15, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney are also examined.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff company was established on June 12, 1974 as a corporation established for the purpose of processing and exporting stone; the elderly earth and chemical agents and export business; the entertainment equipment manufacturing and export business; the entertainment equipment manufacturing and export business; and the business incidental thereto; instead of the entertainment equipment manufacturing and export business among its business purposes, the addition of synthetic resin recycling and processing business, tobacco manufacturing and processing business, and the real estate rental business was added to September 3, 1983. Thus, if the plaintiff leased the building without using it directly for the above business purposes between 1978 and 1982, the land is not subject to a disposition for non-business purposes, even if it is not subject to a disposition for non-business purposes, it is not subject to a disposition for non-business purposes as well as the land of the corporation under Article 188 (1) 1 and 3 of the Local Tax Act.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the taxation disposition is void as a matter of course is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or omission of judgment.

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju