[1] Criteria for determining "justifiable reasons" under Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to recognize justifiable grounds for not being used directly for its unique duties within one year from the date of acquisition of forest land acquired by a corporation established for the purpose of tourist facility business, etc. for new condominium construction or sale

[1] Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998), Article 112(2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5615 of Dec. 31, 1998), Article 84-4(current deleted) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835 of Jul. 16, 1998)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Nu8750 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 110), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu6041 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2461), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2957 delivered on November 18, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 121), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu5257 delivered on December 8, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 431 delivered on October 10, 197), Supreme Court Decision 96Nu1074 delivered on September 27, 208 (Gong1997Ha, 3504 delivered on October 29, 209)

Nakdongsan Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sami General Law Office, Attorneys Lee Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Cheongnam-do Head of Chungcheongnam-do

Daejeon High Court Decision 2000Nu930 delivered on November 16, 2001

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

"Justifiable reason" under Article 84-4 of the former Enforcement Decree of Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15835, Jul. 16, 1998; hereinafter referred to as "Decree") concerning land for non-business use includes not only external reasons which the corporation cannot use with mind, but also internal reasons beyond the grace period due to lack of time to make normal efforts to use it for its unique duties, such as restrictions on prohibition under Acts and subordinate statutes. In determining the existence of justifiable reasons, it shall be determined individually according to specific cases, considering the legislative intent of heavy taxation, in full view of whether the relevant corporation is a profit-making corporation, the period of preparation required for using it for its unique purposes in light of the purpose of acquiring land, the period of preparation required for its unique purposes, the statutory and de facto disability and degree of disability, whether the relevant corporation has made a serious effort to use the land for its unique duties, whether the relevant administrative agency's cause was attributable (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1888, Jul. 12, 2002).

According to the records and duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff purchased the forest land of this case for the purpose of newly building and selling a condominium on April 22, 1997 with the purpose of purchasing the forest land of this case as a corporation established for the purpose of tourist facility business, etc., and after obtaining permission from the competent authority for changing the form and quality of the forest, part of the forest land of this case was implemented by cutting the trees above the above land and excavating and opening the access road due to the excavation and banking of the land. On May 5, 1998, the building construction was suspended at the time of the dissolution of the Mai Group, which is the mother group, and the building construction was not commenced at all until the time, and there was no report on the commencement of construction to the competent authority. The plaintiff decided to waive the building construction and selling project of this case by making it difficult for the plaintiff to raise funds, and around June 5, 1998, sold the forest land of this case to another company.

If the circumstances leading to the sale after the Plaintiff acquired the forest land of this case are different, the Plaintiff is a corporation which does not engage in the forest business as its main business, and since it did not directly use the land category for the unique business of constructing and selling condominiums within one year from the date of acquiring the forest land of this case, it does not fall under the main sentence of Article 84-4 (3) 4 (a) of the Decree, and eventually becomes a non-business land as provided in the main sentence of Article 84-4 (3) of the Decree. In light of the above legal principles, it cannot be viewed that there is a justifiable reason as provided in the proviso of paragraph (3) of the same Article in that it did not directly use the forest land of this case for its unique business as seen above. Thus, the disposition of this case on which the Defendant imposed acquisition tax by applying the heavy taxation rate as provided in Article 112 (2) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No.

Under the above circumstances, the court below's determination to the effect that there are justifiable reasons stipulated in the proviso of Article 84-4 (3) of the Decree is erroneous. However, the conclusion is justified on the grounds that there are other reasons, which is a legitimate disposition of this case. The above error is justified, and it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, as alleged in the ground of appeal by the plaintiff, it is not acceptable or acceptable to accept the assertion of legal principles as to whether the plaintiff used directly for the corporation

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)