[법인세등부과처분취소][공1989.12.1.(861),1677]
The case holding that the taxable object of the special surtax shall be excluded in case where the newly built apartment prices for the purpose of sale are leased provisionally and the property revaluation, etc. is conducted, but sold in lots.
In case where an apartment construction company newly constructed a commercial building in an apartment complex for the purpose of selling it in lots for the purpose of selling it in lots, but the leased part of it for a certain period for the purpose of selling it in lots is inevitable due to the lack of sale conditions, and the company has sold it in lots, even if it conducted depreciation or property re-evaluation on the commercial building, it is merely a measure of corporate accounting, and it cannot be deemed that the company has renounced its original purpose of selling it. Therefore, the construction and sale of the commercial building constitutes a case where the company newly built and sold the house under Article 124-3 (
Articles 124-3(5) and 124-3(6) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
Attorney Han-ho et al., Counsel for defendant
The director of the tax office.
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu605 delivered on February 14, 1989
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff constructed the commercial building of this case for the purpose of selling them in the same manner as the original apartment section 2, but the above apartment section was completed around October 1978, but it is not possible for the plaintiff to individually sell the commercial building of this case from the relevant specialized research institute around July 1980, because it is impossible for the plaintiff to sell the commercial building of this case to sell it in the same manner as the original apartment section 2, 2, and 3 years after the completion of the construction of new apartment section 2, since it did not meet the mutual opinion, the plaintiff did not temporarily sell the commercial building of this case for the purpose of selling it in the first 2,3 years after the completion of the construction of new apartment section 3, 198, 197, 2, 300, 3000, 198, 1,0000, 3,0000,000,000,000).
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 on the bench.
Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)