Invest KOREA

Where change of development activities is permitted in order to extend the period of the project for change of form and quality of land, registration and license tax should be filed and paid for such permission of change pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

Under the principle of no taxation without law, tax laws shall be interpreted according to their legal text unless there is special cause not to do so, and expansive or analogical interpretation is not permitted without a reasonable cause. ¹⁾

And because subparagraph 2 of Article 24 of the Local Tax Act includes a person who obtains an altered license in the scope of persons liable to pay a registration and license tax, and Article 35 (1) of the same Act explicitly prescribes that a person who intends to change his/her license shall pay a registration and license tax. Therefore, a person who intends to obtain a permission for change of development activities should pay registration and license tax as prescribed by Article 35 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

In the Local Tax Act, Article 35 (1) states that a person who intends to obtain a new license or change a license shall file a registration and license tax return and pay tax, mandating such person’s liability to pay registration and license tax. Also, paragraph (2) of the same Article stipulates the frequency and number of impositions of registration and license tax, including that registration and license tax shall be annually imposed for licenses the term of validity of which is not specified. Furthermore, paragraph (3) of the same Article prescribes exceptions to paragraph (2), stating the cases where registration and license tax is imposed only once. Judging from such facts, it is reasonable to interpret that paragraph (3) of the said Article is a regulation on the exceptions on the rules on the frequency and number of impositions of registration and license tax, and is not an exceptional clause on the filing and payment of license and registration tax of a person who intends to change his/her license under paragraph 1 of the same Article.

In addition, license tax is a type of “services tax” imposed for each type of license with the license for a specific activity as its taxable object, regardless of whether the recipient of the license is profitable or not. In this regard, the unit of taxation should be determined based on the number of specific licenses issued by an administrative agency. Also, it is deemed that permission of change of development activities to extend the period of a project for change of form and quality of land is obtained by means of extending the existing permission period for development activities needed for the change of form and quality of land that will take place after the expiration of the existing project period. Moreover, under the National Land Planning Act, the requirements and procedure, etc. for permission of change of development activities prescribed are identical to those applied to permission of development activities. Considering such facts, it can be concluded that change of permission of development activities is a separate administrative act under which the permission standards and administrative procedure applied to obtain permission of development activities are re-applied. Therefore, in regard to change of permission of development activities to extend the period of a project to change the form and quality of land, registration and license tax for the permission for change should be filed and paid separately pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Local Tax Act, and such interpretation shall be in conformance with the characteristics of license tax as a services tax.

As such, where a change of permission of development activities is permitted to extend a project to change the form and quality of land, registration and license tax for such permission of change should be filed and paid pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

Yes, in this case, it is considered a case in which “two or more projects are collectively implemented under a single project plan” under note 9 of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act.

Under note 9 of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, it is prescribed that “where a project implementer implements two or more projects under a single project plan and the sum of the figures calculated under the formula prescribed under the same note is one or more, environmental impact assessment should be conducted for the entire project”. The purpose of the clause is to minimize environmental damage by reviewing the harmful impact that multiple projects can have on the area’s environment if the quantitative and cumulative impact of the projects exceeds the environmental capacity of the area. In this regard, “two or more projects” in the regulation means two or more projects subject to environmental impact assessment pursuant to individual laws. Even when multiple projects are conducted in a single project area, the projects should each be independent and separable to be deemed as two or more projects.

Where a permission for conversion of mountainous districts (mountainous district development project) is required to install waste disposal facilities, it is considered “two or more projects” under note 9 of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act for the following reason.
Under the Environmental Impact Assessment Act, a mountainous district development project and a waste disposal facility establishment project are separate projects subject to different environmental impact assessment (each prescribed under Article 22 (1) 12 and 22 (1) 15 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act). A mountainous district development project is legally based under the Mountainous Districts Management Act, and a waste disposal facility establishment project has its legal basis under the Wastes Control Act. A project for development of mountainous districts is implemented to use mountainous districts for uses other than afforestation for the rational preservation and use of mountainous districts or to change the form or quality of mountainous districts. On the other hand, the purpose of a project for establishment of a waste disposal facility is to reduce the generation of wastes to the maximum extent possible and treating generated wastes in an environment-friendly manner. In addition, a mountainous district development project is not part of a waste disposal facility establishment project and a separate permission for conversion of mountainous districts (Article 14 (1) of the Mountainous Districts Management Act) should be obtained. In this respect, a mountainous district development project and a waste disposal facility establishment project are each independent projects that are separable, and thus the two are deemed “two or more projects”.

If a place where a waste disposal facility is to be established is a mountainous district, it is considered a case in which a single project implementer combines a waste disposal facility establishment project and a mountainous district development project into a waste disposal facility establishment project and implements the two as a single project. Also, compared to when each of the two projects are implemented separately, the implementation of the two projects as a single one may increase environmental impact on the area due to the combined impact of both projects. And because the environmental impact on the area may be compounded in such case, there is a need to study the quantitative and cumulative environmental impact to the area.

Consequently, this should be considered a case in which “two or more projects are collectively implemented under a single project plan” under note 9 of attached Table 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Environmental Impact Assessment Act..

Yes. In this case, an occupancy contract for the unique business should be concluded before concluding a leasing business occupancy contract.

Pursuant to the main sentence of Article 38-2 (1) of the Industrial Cluster Development and Factory Establishment Act (hereafter the “Act”), any person who intends to engage in the leasing business with industrial sites or factories, etc. in an industrial facilities zone, etc. shall conclude an occupancy agreement with a management agency after reporting on the completion of establishment, etc. of factories pursuant to Article 15 (1) of the Act or on the commencement of business pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article: Provided, That he or she may conclude an occupancy agreement before reporting on the completion of establishment, etc. of factories or on the commencement of business.

The main sentence of Article 38-2 (1) of the Act was revised into its current state when it was partially amended into Act no. 9426 on Feb. 6, 2009. In related legislative documents, it is stipulated that the purpose of the amended regulation is to strengthen the requirements for business implementation, requiring reporting on the completion of establishment, etc. of factories or on the commencement of business when intending to operate a leasing business in an industrial complex, in order to prevent speculative lease demand for industrial land, factories, etc. so that actual demand can be met.

Also, in the proviso of Article 38-2 (1) of the Act, the exceptional cases where it is permitted to conclude an occupancy contract before reporting on the completion of establishment, etc. of factories or on the commencement of business are prescribed, and such exceptions are limited to where a person engages in specific business areas (electricity generation business by using solar energy) or where the Korea Asset Management Corporation leases an industrial site or a plant.

If so, “report on the completion of establishment, etc. of factories” or “report on the commencement of business” are stipulated as procedures that should precede the conclusion of a leasing business occupancy contract under the main sentence of Article 38-2 (1) of the Act for the purpose of preventing the purchase or acquisition of factories, etc. only for leasing business purposes in industrial facility zones, etc. Also, for this purpose, the regulation prescribes that only when an advance occupancy agreement, etc. for a unique business is concluded and installation of facilities, etc. is completed and the unique business was implemented or currently is implemented, a leasing business occupancy contract can be concluded for the factory, etc. and a leasing business can be conducted. In this regard, it is fair to regard that “report on the completion of establishment, etc. of factories” or “report on the commencement of business” under the main sentence of Article 38-2 (1) of the Act refers to reports for implementing a unique business where an advance occupancy contract for the unique business has already been concluded. On the other hand, “occupancy contract” shall mean “an occupancy contract for leasing business”, or a leasing business occupancy contract.

The Act regulates the leasing contract period and disposal of property to restrict lessors from exercising their property rights, so that a leasing business cannot be used for speculative purposes. Moreover, to prevent speculations for capital gains so that industrial sites and factories can be supplied to persons with actual demand, Article 39 (6) of the Act stipulates restrictions¹⁰⁾ on disposal of industrial sites, etc. Considering such facts, it is reasonable to argue that if a person that is not a tenant of the industrial facility zones, etc. intends to acquire a factory, etc. in an industrial facility zone, etc., he/she can conclude a leasing business occupation contract pursuant to Article 38-2 only after an advance occupancy contract, etc. is concluded for his/her unique business and a report on completion of establishment of factory, etc. or report on business commencement for the unique business is completed.

In conclusion, in this case, an advance occupancy contract, etc. on a unique business should be concluded before concluding a leasing business occupancy contract.

Yes. With regard to a surviving corporation that received reduction or exemption of acquisition tax for a merger deemed qualified, where any ground prescribed under Article 44-3 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act arises within three years from the date the merger is registered, the acquisition tax reduced or exempted pursuant to the proviso of Article 57-2 (1) of the Act on Restriction of Special Cases Concerning Local Taxation excluding its subparagraphs shall be collected as penalty.

According to Article 57-2 (1) of the Act on Restriction of Special Cases Concerning Local Taxation, “acquisition tax on property for business acquired by not later than December 31, 2024 by transfer in the course of a merger prescribed by Presidential Decree as a merger that falls under Article 44 (2) or (3) of the Corporate Tax Act” shall be reduced or exempted. Under the Act, both qualified mergers and mergers deemed qualified are subject to reduction or exemption of acquisition tax. Also, the aforementioned Article only stipulates that the reduced or exempted acquisition tax shall be collected as penalty where any ground prescribed under Article 44-3 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act arises within three years from the date the merger is registered, and does not specify the types of mergers where the reduction or exemption of acquisition tax shall be collected as penalty. In addition, in regard to the causes for collection of reduced or exempted acquisition tax as penalty, instead of quoting the entire paragraph of Article 44-3 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act, the subparagraphs of the Article are cited for the reasons for collection of the reduced or exempted acquisition tax as penalty. In this regard, it cannot be considered that “excluding cases deemed as a qualified merger pursuant to Article 44 (3)” prescribed in Article 44-3 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act applies to the causes for collection as penalty tax. In other words, it is clear according to the meaning of the legal text that surviving corporations upon mergers deemed qualified shall be included in the scope of entities subject to collection of reduced or exempted acquisition tax as penalty pursuant to the proviso of Article 57-2 (1) of the Restriction of Special Cases Concerning Local Taxation Act excluding its subparagraphs.

A corporation that underwent a merger deemed qualified is excluded from the scope of corporations subject to discontinuation of application of special taxation under Article 44-3 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act, because unlike qualified mergers, mergers deemed qualified fall under cases where a corporation merges with a wholly owned subsidiary, and therefore they are qualified for special taxation regardless of whether they satisfy the requirements for recognition as qualified mergers pursuant to the subparagraphs of Article 44 (2) of the same Act. And based on this, some opinions argue that because reduction or exemption of acquisition tax for merged corporations under Article 57-2 (1) of the Act on Restriction of Local Taxation applies to corporations that underwent mergers deemed qualified regardless of whether the corporation satisfies the conditions for recognition as a qualified merger, and consequently mergers deemed qualified should be excluded from the scope of cases where the reduced or exempted acquisition tax should be collected as penalty, just like special taxations for merged corporations pursuant to the Corporate Tax Act.

However, national tax and local tax are two separate taxes which differ in terms of objective of taxation, subject of taxation, etc. and they can be applied differently pursuant to their respective objective of legislation and purpose of taxation. In this regard, a separate set of rules and regulations can be prescribed for the same subject of taxation. Consequently, where national tax regulations are only partially cited in a law related to local tax, the regulations should only be applied to the Article citing the regulation and not to the other parts of the law, so this is not a valid argument.

Therefore, with regard to a merged corporation that received reduction or exemption of acquisition tax for a merger deemed qualified, where any ground prescribed under Article 44-3 (3) of the Corporate Tax Act arises within three years from the date the merger is registered, the acquisition tax reduced or exempted pursuant to the proviso of Article 57-2 (1) of the Act on Restriction of Special Cases Concerning Local Taxation excluding its subparagraphs shall be collected as penalty.

In this case, it is not mandatory for the provider of information communication service, etc. to comply with the relevant Korean Industrial Standards.

Considering the fact that the main sentence of Article 8 (1) of the Information Communications Network Act prescribes matters related to the establishment and public notice of the standards for information and communications network and recommends providers of information and communication services to comply with the standards, it should be deemed that the proviso of the same Article stipulates exceptions related to the Ministry of Science and ICT’s establishment and public notice of standards and the recommendation to use such standards, and this cannot be interpreted that this provision regulates that providers of information communication service, etc. are mandated to comply with the Korean Industrial Standards.

In addition, the proviso of Article 8 (1) of the same Act prescribes that the matters for which the Korean Industrial Standards under Article 12 of the Industrial Standardization Act have already been established shall comply with such standards in order to provide a system that prevents information communication network certification matters and Korean Industrial Standards certification matters from overlapping so that they can be reasonably applied and operated, so it is difficult to deem that the purpose of such provision is to make it obligatory for the providers of information and communication service, etc. to comply with the Korean Industrial Standards.

Moreover, there are no regulations that prescribe sanctions on violations of the proviso of Article 8 (1) of the Information and Communications Network Act or regulations mandating the use of products and services that comply with the Korean Industrial Standards. Also, there are no regulations placing sanctions on cases in which the Korean Industrial Standards have not been complied with. Judging from such facts, the proviso of Article 8 (1) of the Act cannot be interpreted as a mandate on the provider of information communication service, etc. to obligatorily use the Korean Industrial Standards.

Therefore, in this case, it can be concluded that the provider of information communication service, etc. is not obligated to comply with the relevant Korean Industrial Standards pursuant to the proviso of Article 8 (1) of the Act.

No. A completed district can not be excluded from “development project districts” just because the operator of the development project has completed part of the development project and underwent an inspection on completion of works.

This question is about whether a development project district where inspection on completion of works was completed is excluded from the scope of “development project district”. However, the Free Economic Zone Act does not provide a definition of “development project district”, so the meaning of “development project district” should be determined based on the content and purpose of the related regulations of the Act.

In accordance with the proviso of Article 7-5 (1) of the Free Economic Zone Act, the proviso of Article 14 (1) of the Act and Article 6-2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, a person who intends to engage in any acts such as the change in the form and quality of land, the construction of buildings, and the installation of structures shall obtain permission from the competent Mayor/Do Governor and the competent Mayor/Do Governor shall grant permission to the extent that does not hinder the relevant development project. If so, “development project district” should be deemed as a district where a free economic zone development project is implemented or shall be implemented. And when considering the objective of the above regulations, it should be regarded that within the relevant district, acts that disrupt the implementation of development projects are restricted, in order to facilitate the implementation of development projects in a free economic zone.

Also, under Articles 4 (4), (5) and (8) of the Free Economic Zone Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it is prescribed that the Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy shall finalize or establish a development plan for a free economic zone (hereafter “development plan”) in order to designate a free economic zone, and where a free economic zone is designated, the Minister shall publish the details of such designation in the Official Gazette and give a notice thereof. In this regard, it is proper to consider that “development projects” under the Free Economic Zone Act are included in the scope of “development plans”, and therefore refers to all development projects to be implemented within the development period.

Moreover, the Free Economic Zone Act prescribes matters regarding procedures after inspection on completion of works such as method of disposal of prepared land, in addition to matters related to development projects such as the preparation of land, the construction or installation of housing, industrial facilities, and public facilities. Considering this and the matters discussed so far, it cannot be said that a “development project” under the Free Economic Zone Act is limited only to development activities per se in a free economic zone, and it should be concluded that the term encompasses the processes related to the disposal of the end product of development projects.

However, in Article 22 (4) of the Guidelines on the Development of Free Economic Zones (notice of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy no. 2018-188) which prescribes the matters necessary for the establishment of free economic zone development plans pursuant to the Free Economic Zone Act, it is stated that development plans and implementation plans can be changed in a “completed district” by applying Articles 7 and 9 of the Free Economic Zone Act mutatis mutandis. In this regard, even if the district is completed after inspection of completion of works pursuant to the Free Economic Zone Act, the original development plan can be changed and implemented if there is a need to change or add the details of the development project.

In this regard, even if part of a development project in a district for a development project is completed and the district is completed after undergoing an inspection for completion of works, it shall be deemed that the procedures necessary for the implementation of the development project should be managed in accordance with the Free Economic Zone Act until the period for the development project is completed. Therefore, interpreting that the aforementioned project district falls under a development project district and thus preventing the disruption of implementation of the development project shall be in compliance with the legislative objective and purpose of the Free Economic Zone Act.br />
Hence, a completed district is not excluded from “development project district” pursuant to the proviso of Article 7-5 (1) of the Free Economic Zone Act only for the reason that the district’s development project has been partially completed and an inspection of completion of works was conducted on the district. p>

In the case where the head of a local government leased land, etc. that the local autonomous body owns to a foreign-invested company pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act and then renewed the lease period pursuant to Article 11 of the same Act, the total period of lease before and after the lease renewal may be over 50 years.

Article 13 (3) of the Foreign Investment Promotion Act stipulates that the lease period can be within 50 years, and Paragraph 11 of the same Article prescribes that the lease period in Paragraph 3 of the same Article can be renewed and that the renewed lease period cannot exceed the lease period prescribed by Paragraph 3 of the same Act. In this regard, the lease period can be up to 50 years and can be renewed for a period not exceeding the previous lease period without any consideration of the accumulated lease period. In addition, there are no regulations restricting the number of times the lease period can be renewed or the total period of lease before and after the lease renewal.

Therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the total period of lease before and after the renewal as prescribed by Article 13 (11) of the same Act should be not more than 50 years.

In addition, the proviso of Article 21 (1) of the Co-owned Properties and Goods Management Act, which is the general law concerning co-owned properties by a local government, stipulates that the period for which permission is granted to use or profit from donated property as prescribed by Article 7 (2) of the same Act shall be from the date on which permission was given for gratuitous use to the date on which the total amount of fee reaches the value of the donated property. However, the maximum period for using or profiting from the property – referred to as the total usable period - is set at 20 years.

Also, the proviso of Article 7 (3) stipulates that the period for using or profiting from donated property can be renewed once up to 10 years within the scope of the total usable period. In other words, it is stated that the total period for which permission is granted to use or profit from donated property cannot exceed 20 years.

If the legislation was meant to restrict the total extended lease period to 50 years, there would have been a regulation on the total lease period like the proviso of Article 7 (3) of the aforementioned Act. In this regard, interpreting that the total extended lease period should not exceed 50 years would limit the lease period in the Act and therefore be unacceptable.

If an aircraft owned by a foreign company is imported on lease for direct use, it is not considered “import on use” stated in Article 7 (6) of the Local Tax Act, which deems that the importer has acquired the imported object.

Under subparagraph 1 of Article 6 of the Local Tax Act, "Acquisition" means original acquisition (excluding acquisition of a taxable asset that has already existed, such as acquisition by a decision of expropriation), acquisition by succession, or all other acquisitions with or without compensation which include acquisition resulting from sale, exchange, inheritance, donation, contribution, investment in kind to a corporation, construction, repair, reclamation of public waters, creation, etc. of land through reclamation, and any other acquisition similar thereto.

Also, Article 7 (1) of the Local Tax Act prescribes that acquisition tax shall be imposed on a person who has "acquired" aircraft. Also, paragraph 2 of the same Article states that aircraft is deemed acquired when it is practically acquired even if the acquisition of such aircraft is not registered or recorded under the relevant statutes. In addition, Article 7 (6) of the same Act is a clause on deemed acquisition tax, which prescribes that where a person imports any article subject to acquisition tax which is held by a foreigner on lease for the purpose of directly using it, the importer of such article shall be deemed to have acquired it.

In principle, in the case of “Lease” under Article 7 (6) of the Local Tax Act for taxation purposes, the form or appearance of the taxation requirement does not immediately constitute “acquisition” under subparagraph 1 of Article 6 of the same Act. However, in spite of this, “import on lease” is considered acquisition and local tax is imposed, and the reason for this is as follows.

In regard to the lease in question, the pre-condition is that the importer shall assume ownership of the taxable object after the lease period has expired, and therefore it is possible to consider that the taxable object has been de facto acquired at the point when the importer has imported and leased the taxable object. However, if acquisition tax is imposed at the actual time of acquisition of the taxable object after the period of lease had expired, the object's residual value will be significantly lower than the reasonable amount, which would be unfair in terms of tax equity. Therefore, based on the principle of tax equity and the purpose of acquisition tax-related regulations, local tax is imposed on the importer (lessee) who has taxable capacity, in compliance with the principle of substantial taxation.

Finance lease, where ownership of the leased object is to be transferred after long-term lease, can be considered de facto acquisition. On the other hand, where an aircraft owned by a foreign company is imported on operating lease for direct use, the foreign lease company continues to have legal, formal, and substantial ownership of the aircraft because the aircraft is to be returned after short-term use. Consequently, it would be in violation of the principle of substantial taxation to consider the "lease" as "acquisition" and deem the importer (lessee) as the payer of acquisition tax by applying Article 7 (6) of the Local Tax Act to import on operating lease as well.

Consequently, it can be concluded that import of a foreign company-owned aircraft on operating lease for direct use is not considered "import on lease" where the importer is considered to have acquired the aircraft pursuant to Article 7 (6) of the Local Tax Act.

Where a client of a building designates a construction engineer as a site manager in accordance with Article 24 (6) of the Building Act, the scope of duties of the construction engineer is restricted to the area of construction under attached Table 1 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act.

Under Article 24 (6) of the Building Act, it is only prescribed that one construction engineer as defined in subparagraph 15 of Article 2 of the same Act shall be appointed as a site manager, but the scope of duties of the construction engineer is not specified. Therefore, the clause on the scope of duties of a construction engineer under Article 24 (6) of the Building Act should be, in principle, interpreted as close to its general meaning, while at the same time the legislative purpose of the Act and its relation to other Acts, etc. should be taken into consideration.

When we look at the definitions, subparagraph 15 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry defines "construction engineer" as "a person deemed to have expertise or skills in construction works under related statutes or regulations". Under subparagraph 8 of Article 2 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, the term is defined as a person prescribed by Presidential Decree who has the qualifications, etc. necessary for construction works or construction engineering, and subparagraph 1 of the same Article prescribes that "construction work" means construction works set forth in subparagraph 4 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry which states that the said term means civil engineering works, landscaping works, environmental installation works, and other works to install, maintain and repair facilities.

However, a site manager under Article 24 (6) of the Building Act is a person who is placed at the construction site pursuant to subparagraph 12 of Article 2 of the same Act where the client of a construction conducts construction, substantial repair, or change of the use, of a building, installation of building service, or erection of a structure. Therefore, based on the laws related to construction engineers, the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the Construction Technology Promotion Act, it is appropriate to interpret that the scope of duties of the construction engineer is restricted to "construction" under item d of subparagraph 3 of attached Table 1 of the Construction Technology Promotion Act.

In addition, it is considered that a site manager appointed by the client of a building should conduct duties such as "supporting the client of a building so that the building and land comply with this Act or other related Acts", "inspection and management of whether a building's location, size, etc. comply with the drawings and specifications", "duties related to process management such as review of matters regarding the construction plan and change of design", "inspection and management of the proper installation of safety facilities and compliance with safety standards", in accordance with Building Act by utilizing understandings and expertise regarding building planning and building construction.

The site manager should have the technology or skills mainly in the field of construction in order to adequately perform the duties. This further confirms that it is fair to conclude that the scope of duties of the construction engineer who can be appointed as a site manager pursuant to Article 24 (6) of the Building Act should be restricted to the field of construction under subparagraph 3 (item d) of attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Technology Promotion Act, which covers specialized fields such as architectural structure, construction machinery and equipment, building construction, interior architecture, construction quality management, building planning and architectural design.

No. A corporation applying for registration as a damage adjusting business does not necessarily have to include a part-time certified damage adjuster in its certified damage adjusters when matters related to them are stated in the application for registration pursuant to Article 97 (1) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act.

Article 97 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act stipulates “matters relating to the employment of certified damage adjusters under Article 98” (subparagraph 4) as one of the matters to be stated in a written application for registration. This is because the matters to be stated are confined to “matters under Article 98,” and also because Articles 98 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree prescribe matters regarding certified damage adjusters who should be employed by a corporation applying for registration as a damage adjusting business, the matters of the employment of certified damage adjusters to be stated in the application should be considered as those related to the standards for the employment of certified damage adjusters in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of the same Article.

However, Article 98 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act prescribes that a corporation intending to run a damage adjusting business should keep “two or more full-time certified damage adjusters” (proviso). And in such case, “one or more full-time certified damage adjusters” shall be kept for each type of business to be run pursuant to the classification of certified damage adjusters prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister (second sentence). In paragraph 2 of the same Article, it is stated that if such corporation intends to establish a branch or business office, it shall keep “one or more certified damage adjusters” for each type of business to be run pursuant to the classification of certified damage adjusters prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister.

Considering that Articles 98 (1) and (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act clearly differentiate “full-time certified damage adjusters” from “certified damage adjusters” depending on whether or not a branch or office is established while stipulating the standards for the employment of certified damage adjusters for a company applying for registration as a damage adjusting business, it is not necessary to include a part-time certified damage adjuster in the category of certified damage adjusters belonging to the corporation, that shall be written in the application for registration under Article 97 (1) 4 of the said Enforcement Decree. .