The President of the Korean Peninsula and the Busan Central Diplomatic Association (Attorney Kim Il-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Busan Metropolitan City and Jung-gu

June 7, 1983

The disposition of imposition of property tax against the plaintiff on May 16, 1982 by the defendant 43,963, urban planning tax amounting to 20,792, tax amounting to 7,396, tax amounting to 9,671, other than the above defense tax amounting to 9,671 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of taxation; and

The Defendant, on May 16, 1982, shall not be deemed to be a property directly used for non-profit businesses by the Plaintiff, who is a non-profit entrepreneur, for the purpose of public interest, as it does not fall under Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act, Article 136 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be liable to pay property tax pursuant to Article 182 of the same Act, and the property tax amounting to KRW 43,963, which is calculated pursuant to Article 188 (1) 2 of the same Act, and Article 235, Article 236, Article 237 of the same Act, and Article 239, Article 239 of the same Act, Article 239, Article 249, Article 239, Article 249, Article 249, Article 239, Article 237 of the same Act, and Article 187 of the same Act, and shall not be subject to the Plaintiff’s tax imposition and collection by applying Article 2369, Article 236 of the same Act.

2. The plaintiff's representative, who is a non-profit business entity for religious purposes, acquired this building directly for the purpose of the purpose of the church's business. Since the acquisition of the building, the defendant's disposition of property tax, etc., such as the order entry, is illegal. Since the defendant's assertion that this disposition is not imposed on the building, the non-profit business entity's property tax should not be imposed on the property for the purpose of the non-profit business as stipulated in Article 184 (1) 3 of the Local Tax Act. Article 136 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the non-profit business entity's property tax shall not be imposed on the property to be directly used for the purpose of the business, which is non-profit business entity's non-profit business, as stipulated in Article 79 of the same Act, and the non-profit business entity's property tax and the non-profit business entity's property tax should not be imposed on the non-profit business entity's own property as stipulated in Article 184 (1) 1 of the same Act.

3. Thus, since the defendant's separate taxation disposition against the plaintiff should be revoked because the building of this case is not the property directly used for the purpose business of this case, the plaintiff's separate taxation disposition against the plaintiff should be revoked illegally. Thus, the plaintiff's separate claim for this issue is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure

June 28, 1983

Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)