The meaning of the direct use by a non-profit entrepreneur for the public interest under Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act

The phrase "non-taxable property under Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act that is used directly by a business operator for the purpose of memorial services, religion, charity, science, art, medical treatment, and other public interest prescribed in Articles 136 and 79 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act refers to the case where it is actually used directly for the relevant business as facilities or site for memorial services, medical services, etc., and even if the land is used by the parties as above, the use relation of the land is merely the possession and use of the land for preparation to use directly for the relevant business, and it cannot be deemed that it is directly used for the relevant business.

Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 79 and Article 136 of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu709 Decided June 26, 1984, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu209 Decided November 26, 1985

Attorney Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Han-gu Office of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu604 decided April 22, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, which is non-taxable property prescribed in Article 184 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and directly used for the business, such as religious, charity, art, medical treatment, and other public interest as prescribed in Articles 136 and 79 of the same Act, shall be interpreted as referring only to the case where the land is actually used for the business, such as specifications, medical treatment, etc. Thus, even if the land is owned by the above business operator, its use relation to the land is merely merely to own and use the land for the purpose of direct use in the business, and it cannot be deemed as being directly used for the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Nu709, Jun. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu209, Nov. 26, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 98Da1984, Nov. 19, 198). 208.

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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)

The regular passenger Kim Jong-sik may not sign and seal due to overseas business trips.