2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff is a corporation that runs a real estate management business, construction business, tourism and resort business, service business, etc. The defendant is a corporation that runs an objective business. The defendant's golf course of 354,094 square meters of land and 1,362 square meters of building 260 square meters of Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun, and 1,362 square meters of revenue in 1987 is merely 54,80,532,458 won of total revenue in the same business year of the plaintiff's 1,630,50,532,4580, 18-3 (1) 3, 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, 1989, 306, 18 (3) 8, 480, 196, 308, 309, 196, 308, 196, 384, 196, 197,

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The above golf course held by the plaintiff is naturally real estate for business purposes under Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, if the above golf course constitutes a golf course owned by a corporation which mainly operates a golf course under Article 18 (3) 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, or if the main business decision in the concurrent operation under Article 18 (5) 2 of the above Enforcement Rule is considered as a business with a large amount of revenue, it means a business for non-business purposes under the provision that the above provision provides for the criteria for determining non-business real estate, which is unreasonably limited to the scope of exemption from application without any ground for delegation of the above Act,

B. The plaintiff has been running the above golf course as the sole business for eight or more years since its establishment in 1963 as the main business purpose. Since 1974, from 1974, the "natural Agriculture Institute", which is the facilities for the use of tourists from the point of 1976, has been constructed and operated as part of the above golf course business from the point of 1976, and the ratio of the real estate value of the above golf course revenue in 1987 to the real estate value of the above golf course revenue in 27.5%. In light of the plaintiff corporation's business purpose and operational status, the above golf course is naturally real estate of the plaintiff corporation, and the new business is added, and the above golf course business and natural agricultural source business constitute multi-level tourist facility business under the Enforcement Decree and all of them are service businesses under the tax law, and the above two businesses are entirely operated as the main business of the plaintiff corporation, and even if the revenue amount of the above golf course falls under 1,630,629,310 won, the above real estate value of 157.

C. The above site is currently designated as a development-restricted area under the Urban Planning Act, and it is impossible to divert it for other purposes, which constitutes "the use under the provisions of the Act" under Article 18 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the above case, and it also constitutes "the use is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes," and the disposition of this case is also deemed to be illegal.

3. Review of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. According to Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act, the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree among interest on loans paid by a corporation which owns real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation in each business year shall not be included in the calculation of the income amount of each business year;

(b) Article 43-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the method of calculating the amount of non-deductible expenses under the same Act, and Article 18-3 (5) of the same Act provides that "real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation concerned" shall mean the real estate determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in consideration of the period after the acquisition of the real estate concerned, the amount of income generated from the real estate concerned, the size of the building, the degree of relation

C. Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the term “real estate for non-business use” in Article 43-2(5) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that “real estate falling under any of the following subparagraphs shall be the real estate for which a golf course or a golf practice course is operated: Provided, That the real estate owned by a juristic person which is the main business of operating a golf course or a golf practice course is not less than 7/100 of the real estate price for one year shall be excluded (Article 18(3) of the same Enforcement Rule of the same Act is amended as not requiring a main business of a juristic person on March 6, 199, and it is amended as not requiring a main business again on April 4,

D. According to Article 4(1) of the above Enforcement Rule, since the acquisition of the pertinent real estate, the use of the real estate is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the law, and two years have not passed since such prohibition or restriction was revoked, it shall not be deemed non-business real estate, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3); and

E. According to Article 18(5)2 of the above Enforcement Rule, the judgment of the main business stipulated in Article 18(3) of the above Enforcement Rule is deemed as the main business with a large amount of revenue.

4. Judgment on the issue

A. We examine the Plaintiff’s first proposal.

Article 18 (3) 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation shall set a golf course as one of non-business real estate and operate a golf course as its main business, and that the amount of income for one year is not less than 7/100 of the real estate price, the corporation shall be excluded from the application thereof, and that the main business shall be determined in accordance with the majority of the amount of income under Article 18 (5) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act shall be provided for a certain interpretation standard concerning the passage period after acquisition as prescribed by the parent law and the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the amount of income, the area of buildings, etc., and the degree of business relationship. Thus,

B. We examine the plaintiff's second claim.

The plaintiff's total revenue amount of Gap's 2, Eul's 4-1, Gap's 6-1, Gap's 7-1, Gap's 7-1, Gap's 10-1, Gap's 12-13, Gap's 14-1, Gap's 17-2, Gap's 17-17, Gap's 19-2, Gap's 19-17, Eul's 19-2, Eul's 17-19-7, Eul's 19-7, Eul's 19-7, Eul's 9-7, Eul's 9-1,'s 9-7, Eul's 19-7, Eul's 16-1, Eul's 9-7, Eul's 16-1, and the plaintiff's 2-5-1, 1967.

The purpose of Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act is to exclude the amount of interest paid on non-business real estate from deductible expenses is to promote a sound operation of a corporation by investing in real estate more than necessary by a corporation or suppressing the possession of real estate for speculative purposes, and to ensure the appropriateness of the ownership of national economic land. In determining whether non-business real estate is a non-business real estate, the details of acquisition of the real estate concerned and the passage period after acquisition, income amount and size of the real estate concerned, and the degree of relation with the business should be reasonably considered, and in case there are more than one business of a corporation, the main business should be determined in consideration of the relation between the business, profitability, business operator, etc., and it should not be considered that all businesses are concurrently operated as subdivided in the articles of incorporation or the register or

In the case of this case, although the plaintiff has been running a business based on the above golf course management for about 8 years, the above golf course business and the nature of the business belongs to the tourist-use facility business under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and more specifically, the above golf course business and the nature of the business belongs to the previous tourist-use facility business, and it is common in that it provides tourists with facilities suitable for amusement, recreation, and sports and provides them for use by tourists, and it cannot be viewed as concurrently running a separate business without mutual relation. It does not change just because the location of the place of business is different or the public nature of the use is different. In addition, if a corporation operating a golf course as its main business for a considerable period of time has added a new business, it does not change the nature of the previous business in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes which were enacted late after adding a new business, and it does not make a new corporation not receive any unfair treatment of the previous business due to the excellent revenue of the previous business operation, and it does not have any economic benefits to prevent the new business operation of a golf course.

As seen earlier, considering the fact that the above provision of the Enforcement Rule, which excludes golf club business from non-business real estate, was revised to be a main business, as seen earlier, the above provision of the above Enforcement Rule was amended to be not required, the above golf club business of the Plaintiff corporation is a main business in the business of natural farmers. Meanwhile, in the above business year, the above golf club business of the Plaintiff corporation is incorporated together with the natural farmers' business, and its entire business is a main business. Meanwhile, in the above business year, the amount of the above golf club revenue exceeds 28/100 of the real estate price, and exceeds 7/100 of the above Enforcement Rule as stipulated in Article 18 (3) 8 of the above Enforcement Rule. Thus, the above golf club

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the real estate owned by the plaintiff constitutes real estate for non-business use is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is legitimate without having to determine the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

Judges Lee Jae-won (Presiding Judge)