A. The meaning of "the date of designating a site" under Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198) that determines whether a real estate for business is exempted from acquisition tax

B. Whether the reporting date of the establishment of a factory is interpreted as the designation date of a site under Article 6 of the former Local Industrial Development Act (Abolition of the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, Act No. 4212, Jan. 13, 1990) (negative)

A. In light of the relevant provisions of the former Industrial Complex Management Act (repealed by the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, Act No. 4212 of Jan. 13, 1990), the related provisions of the former Industrial Complex Management Act (repealed by the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, Act No. 4216 of Jan. 13, 1990), and the legislative intent of the former Industrial Complex Management Act (repealed by the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act), it is reasonable to say that the term “the date of site designation” under Article 110-3(2)1 of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 1988), which determine whether a real estate for business is eligible for exemption from acquisition tax, should be interpreted as including the date of concluding an occupancy contract under Article 11 of the former Industrial Complex Management Act.

B. According to Article 36 (3) of the former Industrial Placement Act, when a report on the installation of a factory under Article 7 of the same Act was made, it shall be deemed that the designation of a factory under Article 6 of the former Local Industrial Development Act (repealed by the Industrial Sites and Development Act, Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990) was made. However, the above provision is interpreted to the effect that if a report on the installation of a factory under Article 7 of the former Industrial Placement Act was made, it does not need to take the procedure for the designation of a factory under Article 6 of the former Local Industrial Development Act, and it shall not be

A.B. Article 110-3(2)1(a) of the former Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028, Dec. 26, 198); Article 11(b) of the former Industrial Complex Management Act (repealed by Act No. 4212, Jan. 13, 1990); Article 36(3) of the former Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act (repealed by the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act)

Sammi Co., Ltd.

Changwon market et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Busan High Court Decision 91Gu452 delivered on September 4, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Article 110-3 (2) 1 of the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4028 of Dec. 26, 198), real estate for business acquired by a person designated for a location under Article 6 of the Local Industrial Development Act within two years from the date of being designated for the purpose of using in the development district shall be exempted from acquisition tax, but real estate acquired before the date of such designation shall be excluded from acquisition tax. Here, the "date of designation of a location" which determines whether to be exempted from acquisition tax is subject to the "date of designation of a location" shall be construed as the "date of designation of a site" under the relevant provisions of the former Industrial Complex Management Act ( repealed by the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act, enacted by Act No. 4212 of Jan. 13, 1990), the relevant provisions of the former Industrial Complex Management Act ( repealed by the Industrial Placement and Factory Construction Act), and the legislative intent of the former Industrial Complex Management Act.

According to the facts established by the court below, on April 25, 198, the plaintiff applied for occupancy to the Changwon Machinery Industrial Corporation subject to the former Industrial Complex Management Act in order to install a factory within the Corporation, and paid 23,000,000 won to the Changwon Industrial Corporation. On May 7, 198 of the same year, the plaintiff was selected as an occupant enterprise of the Changwon Industrial Corporation and entered into an occupancy contract for the factory site in this case on December 21 of the same year and paid the remaining price on the day. On July 26, 1989, the plaintiff reported the installation of a factory under the provisions of Article 7 of the former Industrial Placement Act to the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy on August 9 of the same year with the consent to use the above occupancy factory site from the Changwon Industrial Corporation, and completed completion inspection on May 21, 190 and operated the factory from that date, so long as the above facts of the occupancy contract in this case were excluded from the acquisition tax or the industrial site in this case's designation date.

According to Article 36 (3) of the former Industrial Placement Act, when a report on the construction of a factory under Article 7 of the same Act is filed, the above provision shall be interpreted to the effect that the designation of a factory under Article 6 of the former Local Industrial Development Act is made. However, the above provision shall not be interpreted to the effect that when a report on the construction of a factory under Article 7 of the former Industrial Placement Act is made, the procedure for the designation of a factory under Article 6 of the former Local Industrial Development Act should not be taken.

It is not possible to be employed as an independent opinion that asserts that the date of report on the establishment of a factory under the former Industrial Placement Act is the date of designation of a site under the former Local Industrial Development Act.

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-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)