It is permitted to purchase a building with part of the transferred money as the financial resources.

for the actual purchase cost, it is not possible to use it for the proper purpose business more.

As such, the instant disposition was included in the gross income for the business year 2013 in part of the instant deposited assets.

Sector is legitimate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3) Judgment on the argument No. 3

Under the tax law, the taxpayer is to facilitate the exercise of the taxation right and the realization of the taxation claim.

(1) Where any tax return or tax liability prescribed by tax-related Acts is violated without justifiable grounds, such tax-related Acts shall apply.

as administrative sanctions imposed pursuant to this Act, the taxpayer's intention or negligence shall not be considered and paid.

If it is unreasonable for a tax obligor to have not known of his duty, it shall be deemed that the tax obligor has not been aware of that duty.

of the parties to the obligation, or there is no reason to expect the parties to do so.

If there is a justifiable reason not to inquire into the failure to perform his/her duties, such as the time of such failure, etc., it may be imposed.

No. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du13842, Feb. 27, 2014).

In this case, although the plaintiff applied for permission to dispose of the land of this case to the Office of Education.

Although the sale price was revealed to be the plan to deposit as a fixed deposit, the plaintiff thereafter stated that the sale price was the plan.

In most of the proceeds from the sale of land, 35 billion won shall be deposited for six months (from November 29, 2011 to May 29, 2012).

- 8-

on May 17, 2012, the maturity of the deposit period after depositing a short-term deposit product.

The Office of Education requested the permission to acquire the substitute property, and the building of this case is located within 2 months thereafter.

On July 31, 2012, the acquisition of substitute property was reported to the competent agency, and one month thereafter.

On September 4, 2012, September 4, 2012, the real estate rental business, which is a profit-making business, begins, etc. and 240 only for several months.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff completed the acquisition of the substitute property belonging to the cost of detention, the Plaintiff’s land of this case

Unlike the express opinion at the time of filing an application for permission for disposal, the sale of the land of this case

The purpose of use in profit-making business has been from the time the non-profit business was transferred to the account;

In order to avoid corporate tax taxation for the pertinent business year, it shall be appropriated as reserve funds for proper business purposes.

As seen earlier, Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act is deemed to have been amended.

If a school juristic person has transferred assets belonging to the accounts for profit-making business to the accounts for profit-making business, it shall be

Although the above provision provides that a non-profit business has been paid to the non-profit business, the legislative purport of the above provision is the same.

In order to support educational projects, it has been transferred to the accounting of non-profit business in the form of form.

It cannot be deemed that the obligation to use for the purpose business is exempted, and Article 56 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

Considering that the meaning of the proper purpose business is clearly defined in Paragraph 5 of Article 5, the Plaintiff

It is deemed that there was a justifiable reason for failure to perform the duty of return and payment of the corporate tax of this case.

It is difficult to do so.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

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

The imposition of corporate tax belonging to the business year from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013 against the Plaintiff on September 3, 2013 - the imposition of additional tax of KRW 2-5,484,394,420 (including additional tax of KRW 624,496,839) shall be revoked.

(a) Sale of fundamental properties for profit-making purposes;

1) 원고는 사립학교법에 따른 학교법인으로서 ★★시 ★★면 ★★리 315-1 등 18필지의 토지(이하 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 수익용 기본재산으로 보유하고 있었다. 2) 원고는 이 사건 토지가 한국수자원공사가 시행하는 시화2단계 개발사업의 사업구역에 편입되자, 2011. 11. 22. 한국수자원공사와 이 사건 토지에 관한 매매계약을 체결하고, 다음날 한국수자원공사 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐주었다.

3) 원고는 위 무렵 한국수자원공사로부터 받은 이 사건 토지의 매각대금 35,421,929,970원을 ★★농협, 농협중앙회, 우리은행 등 3곳의 금융기관에 개설한 예금계좌에 분산 예치하였다(이하에서는 위 3곳의 금융기관계좌에 예치된 돈을 '이 사건 예금자산'이라 한다).

(b) Accounting;

1) The Plaintiff at the time of filing a corporate tax for the business year from March 1, 2011 to February 29, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “2012 business year”) pursuant to Article 74(1)1(a) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 201) (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 201) minus the acquisition value of the instant land from the amount equivalent to the deposit assets belonging to a profit-making account pursuant to Article 3186,215,00 (hereinafter referred to as “transfer amount”) as its proper purpose business, and thereby did not pay corporate tax on profits from the sale of the instant land to its deductible expenses.

- 3-

2) Meanwhile, at the time of settlement of accounts in 2012, the Plaintiff transferred the instant transfer to the non-profit business accounting.

(c) Acquisition of substitute property;

1) 원고는 2012. 5. 17. 경기도★★★★교육지원청장에게 이 사건 전출금 중 26,054,000,000원으로 대체재산을 취득하는 것을 허가하여 달라고 요청하였고, 경기도 ★★★★교육지원청장은 2012. 6. 18. 이를 허가하였다.

2) 원고는 2012. 8. 3. 이 사건 전출금 중 25,970,247,329원을 지출하여 수익사업용 재산인 ★★시 ★★동 1600 소재 건물(이하 '이 사건 건물'이라 한다)을 취득하였다. 라. 이 사건 처분1) 피고는 원고가 이 사건 전출금 중 일부로 이 사건 건물을 취득한 것은 고유목 적사업준비금의 사용의무를 위반한 경우에 해당한다고 보아 법인세법 제29조 제4항 제4호에 따라 위 취득자금 중 23,999,534,480원을 2012. 3. 1. ~ 2013. 2. 28. 사업연도(이하 '2013 사업연도'라 한다)의 익금에 산입하는 것으로 조정하여 2013. 9. 3. 원고에 대하여 2013 사업연도 귀속 법인세 5,484,394,420원(= 본세 4,859,897,585원 + 가산세 624,496,839원)을 경정‧고지하였다(이하 '이 사건 처분'이라 한다). 2) 원고는 이 사건 처분에 불복하여 2013. 11. 27. 국세청장에게 심사청구를 하였으나, 기각되었다. 인정 근거 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제2호증, 제3호증의 1부터 11, 제5호증의 1, 2 제6호증의 1, 2, 3, 제7호증의 1부터 11, 제8호증의 1, 2, 제9, 10호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

- 4-

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The disposition of this case shall be revoked in the order of "(1), (2), and (3) because it is unlawful in the following respect (hereinafter referred to as "claim").

① Since the Plaintiff transferred the instant transfer money to a nonprofit business account in 2012, according to the latter part of Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, the instant transfer money was deemed to have already been disbursed to the proper purpose business. In other words, in the business year 2013, there was no proper purpose business reserve fund for the proper purpose business, and the acquisition amount of the instant building is not the proper purpose business reserve fund, but the instant transfer money already transferred to the nonprofit business account. Therefore, the acquisition of the instant transfer money by the instant transfer did not

(2) Even if the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the substitute property from the instant transfer constitutes a violation of the obligation to use the reserve fund for proper purpose business, it may not be included in the gross income in calculating the income amount for the business year in which five years have passed since the end of the business year in which the reserve fund for proper purpose business was appropriated as deductible expenses pursuant to Article 29(4)4 of the Corporate Tax Act.

③ The Plaintiff did not intend to acquire the instant building with the instant transfer money at the time of transferring the instant transfer money to the non-profit business accounting. Since there exists a comparison of opinion with the latter part of Article 76(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s failure to report and pay the instant corporate tax, etc., the portion of penalty tax of the instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

- 5-

1) Determination as to the argument No. 1

A) 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 accounting for profit-making business to the accounting for profit-making business, it shall be deemed that it has been disbursed for a non-profit business." The plaintiff transferred the funds in this case from the accounting for profit-making business to the accounting for profit

In such cases, the plaintiff is no longer exempt from the obligation to pay the transferred money to the proper purpose business.

법인세법 제3조 제3항 제5호에 의하면, 비영리내국법인이 ★★자산(고유목적사업에 직접 사용하는 ★★자산으로서 대통령령으로 정하는 것은 제외한다)을 처분하여 생기는 수입(수익사업)은 법인세 과세대상이다. 그러나 비영리법인이 수익사업을 영위하는 것은 수익사업에서 소득을 얻어 비영리사업에 사용하기 위한 것인데 과세소득에 한하여 비영리사업에 사용될 수 있도록 한다면 교육, 사회복지, 의료 등 각종 고유목적 사업을 지원할 책임이 있는 국가가 공익사업에 사용될 재원 중 일부를 법인세 형태로 취하여 오히려 고유목적사업 수행을 방해하는 결과를 초래하게 된다. 이러한 상황을 방지하기 위하여 법인세법 제29조 제1항은 '비영리법인이 고유목적사업에 지출하기 위하여 고유목적사업준비금을 손금으로 계상한 경우에는 법정 한도액 범위 안에서 당해 사업연도의 소득금액계산에 있어서 이를 손금에 산입한다'고 규정하는 한편, 같은 조 제4항 제4호는 '고유목적사업준비금을 손금으로 계상한 사업연도 종료일 이후 5년이 되는 날까지 고유목적사업에 사용하지 아니한 경우 해당 사유가 발생한 날이 속한 사업연도의 소득금액계산에 있어서 이를 익금에 산입한다'고 규정하여 기설정된 고유목 적사업준비금을 실제 고유목적사업에 사용하도록 강제하고 있다.

- 6 - 위와 같은 법인세법 제29조의 입법취지에 비추어 볼 때 법인세법 시행규칙 제76조 제4항 후문에 따라 사립학교 학교법인이 수익사업회계에 속하는 자산을 고유목적 사업준비금으로 계상하여 비영리사업회계로 전출한 경우 이를 비영리사업에 지출한 것으로 의제된다 하더라도 이로써 그 전출금을 실제로 고유목적사업에 사용하는지 불문하고 영구적으로 법인세 부담이 면제된다고 보는 것은 문언에만 얽매인 형식적인 해석일 뿐만 아니라 종국적으로는 시행규칙으로 말미암아 법률이 형홰화되는 결과를 초래하게 된다는 점에서 허용될 수 없다.

In other words, the cash assets appropriated in the reserve fund for the proper purpose business and transferred to the account for the non-profit business shall be deemed to be used for the proper purpose business in the future, notwithstanding the provisions of the above Enforcement Rule, and it shall be deemed that the use of the reserve fund for the proper purpose business is limited to the use of the proper purpose business in the future, and it shall be deemed that the transfer fund is also a condition that

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the substitute property for profit from the instant transfer violates the obligation to use it for the proper purpose business, which is the original purpose of the instant transfer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

2) Judgment on the argument No. B

Article 29(4)4 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where a non-profit corporation that has established a reserve fund for essential business and included in deductible expenses uses the reserve fund established within five years after the end of the business year in which the reserve fund for essential business is appropriated as deductible expenses for its proper business, the remaining amount that has not been used for the proper business shall be included in the gross income for the business year every five years, limited to the remaining amount that has not been used for the proper business.

- 7 - 적사업준비금을 설정하여 손금에 산입하고 비영리사업회계로 전출한 비영리법인이 5년 내에 그 전출금을 임의 환입하여 수익사업에 사용함으로써 더는 고유목적사업에 사용할 수 없는 것이 분명해진 경우에는 5년의 기한까지 기다릴 필요 없이 곧바로 해당 사업연도 익금에 산입할 수 있다고 보아야 한다.이 사건의 경우에도, 원고가 2012. 6. 18. 경기도★★★★교육지원청장으로부터 이