법인세등부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On August 1, 2001, the Plaintiff was donated from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Nowon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 274 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant building”).
B. When the instant building was designated as a disaster-hazardous building due to aging on November 26, 2001, the Plaintiff removed the instant building on June 5, 2002, and sold the instant land to D on March 31, 2008 at KRW 570,000,000.
C. The Defendant determined that “the Plaintiff did not directly use the instant land for its proper purpose business for at least three consecutive years as of the date of disposal,” and imposed corporate tax of KRW 127,798,570 on the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013.
(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.
On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a petition with the Tax Tribunal for a trial on May 29, 2013, but the said petition was dismissed on October 2, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10 through 12 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Since the Plaintiff kept the church fixtures on the instant land after the instant building was removed, it should be deemed that the instant land was used for religious activities, which are its principal purpose business. 2) It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff used the instant land for religious activities only by keeping the church fixtures on the instant land on domestic affairs.
Even if the removal of the building of this case is due to the order to remove the building of this case, taxation on this ground is contrary to the principle of good faith.
Considering the fact that the instant building was removed in accordance with the order to remove the Nowon-gu Office and the sale of the instant land for religious activities, there is a justifiable ground for not using the instant land for religious activities. Therefore, it should be deemed that the instant land was used for religious activities.