Where a bank has acquired land for the purpose of preserving bonds and disposed of it as fixed assets for business on the corporate books in order to use it as a branch office, but has withdrawn the establishment policy of a branch office and sold it within a grace period, whether the acquisition of the land is an acquisition of land for non-business use by the

Even if a financial institution prescribed by the Banking Act acquires land for the purpose of preserving bonds and treats it as fixed assets for the business of a corporation in order to use it as a branch office, it still has the nature of land for the purpose of preserving bonds. Thus, if it has withdrawn the establishment policy of a branch office and sold it within the grace period prescribed in Article 84-4 (4) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13033 of Jun. 29, 190), it cannot be deemed that the acquisition of the land is the acquisition tax of the corporation

Article 112(2) of the Local Tax Act; the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13033, Jun. 29, 1990) and Article 84-4

Chungcheong Bank Co., Ltd.

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the head of Dong-gu, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu16404 delivered on April 2, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the court below's decision, if the plaintiff, a financial institution under the Banking Act, applied for voluntary auction on the land of this case and buildings on the ground of this case for the purpose of preserving its claim, but failed several times, it acquired the ownership by winning a successful bid on August 24, 1987, and by paying the successful bid price on its own, and thereafter, it was decided on April 8, 198 to be used as the branch office of the plaintiff bank as fixed assets for business purposes on the 20th of the same month, but it was not appropriate for the plaintiff bank to use the title as the branch office of the bank as fixed assets for business purposes pursuant to the guidelines for the adjustment of store established by the financial division. Thus, the court below's decision on March 21, 199 to withdraw the first priority policy of the bank's first priority and to sell it. Thus, the plaintiff still did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the land for non-business purposes as the land acquired by the plaintiff, which was a financial institution under the Banking Act, for sale of this case's land for non-business purposes.

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