Whether the open space of empty boxes and empty boxes used by corporations for manufacture and sale is land for non-business use.

Land used by a corporation for manufacturing and selling alcoholic beverages as a loading place for empty boxes and empty boxes directly related to the above brewing and selling of alcoholic beverages is used directly by the above corporation for its proper purpose. Thus, this cannot be deemed as land for non-business use by a corporation under Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act.

Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act Article 142 (1) 1 (7)

[Defendant-Appellant] Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 84Gu35 delivered on June 11, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is to stipulate that a corporation shall, in principle, regard land not used directly for its proper purpose without any justifiable reason as land for non-business use by a corporation. However, even if a corporation does not directly use such land for its proper purpose, land listed in the proviso shall not be deemed land for non-business use by a corporation. Thus, land (business use land of a corporation) used directly for its proper purpose by a corporation shall be always excluded from land for non-business use by a corporation regardless of the above proviso.

Therefore, Article 75-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, which was enacted on the basis of the provisions of the above proviso, shall not be applicable to the land that a corporation uses directly for its own purpose and thus does not fall under non-business use of the corporation. Therefore, the above land is excluded from non-business use of the corporation solely on the fact that the corporation uses directly for its own purpose regardless of the provisions of Article 75-2 of the above Rule.

The judgment of the court below determined that the plaintiff used the original site, which is the land subject to taxation of this case, as the place of loading a empty box, which is directly related to the manufacture and sale of the goods for its own purpose and that the plaintiff used the above land for its own purpose. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the corporation under Article 142 (1) 1 (7) of the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act is a land which is not directly used for its own purpose. Thus, the court below determined that the tax disposition of this case was unlawful by the defendant by deeming the above land as non-business land of the plaintiff company.

Although the plaintiff corporation uses the above land directly for its own purpose, the above land constitutes non-business land of the corporation under Article 75-2 subparagraph 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above Enforcement Rule. However, as determined by the court below, so long as the use of the above land of the plaintiff corporation directly for its own purpose and it does not constitute non-business land of the plaintiff corporation, the above land is excluded from non-business land of the plaintiff corporation regardless of the contents of the Rules of the Lawsuit, as seen above, regardless of the contents of the Rules of the Lawsuit, the above land is excluded from non-business land of the plaintiff corporation.

In addition, on the premise that the land in this case falls under the non-business land of the plaintiff corporation as stipulated in Article 11 (2) of the Industrial Placement Act, the court below's argument that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as stipulated in the above Article 11 of the judgment of the court below is based on a new fact not asserted in

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 Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)