법인세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "5-14" of the second 6th 6th 2nd 6th 2th 2th 10 judgment in the court of first instance is as "57-14"; "the report" of the fourth 8th 4th 6th 8 is as "the report"; "the June 4th 6th 7th 16th 16th 16th 16th 13th 9th 13th "the order to clarify"; "23,09,147,294 ," "the 23,099,147,294 ," and "the 23,099,147,294 ," and "the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff's new assertion in the court of first 2nd 2nd 2nd 3.
2. Additional determination
A. In light of the fact that the latter part of Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Apr. 1, 2011) is deemed to have been paid to a nonprofit business, the land of this case, which belongs to the nonprofit business accounting, is naturally paid to the nonprofit business, since the Plaintiff did not separately enter the profit-making business accounting.
B. In light of the legislative intent of Article 29 of the Corporate Tax Act, the latter part of Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where an educational foundation under the Private School Act has transferred the assets belonging to the profit-making business accounting to a non-profit business accounting, it shall be deemed that it has been disbursed to a non-profit business." However, this provision does not apply to the case where the accounting of profit-making business and the non-profit business accounting have not been separately accounted as the Plaintiff. However, in light of the legislative purpose of Article 29 of the Corporate Tax Act, the latter part of Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule