[수시분법인세부과처분취소청구사건][고집1971특,362]
The case holding that the disposition of imposition on the income of the medical school affiliated with the medical school is null and void.
The medical business stipulated in Article 1 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act refers to the medical business for the purpose of earning profits from school management, and since it does not refer to the name of affiliated hospital of medical colleges, it is reasonable to impose corporate tax, Class A income tax, additional tax, etc. on the income earned from the affiliated hospital of medical colleges operated by the educational foundation.
Article 32 of the Civil Act; Articles 10, 5, and 6 of the Private School Act; Article 10 of the Decree on the Standards for University Establishment; Article 1 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;
Supreme Court Decision 70Nu105 delivered on December 22, 1970 (Kakadd 9360; Supreme Court Decision 18Noh 107 delivered on December 14, 197; Supreme Court Decision 71Nu120 delivered on December 14, 1971
The Foundation shall maintain the Seongdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Association
Head of Seoul Central Tax Office
(1) On June 5, 1970, the Defendant issued each disposition of KRW 37,393,598, (2) 7,221,020, and (3) 3,739,359, and (4) 72,102, of additional tax on the occasional pro rata labor income of KRW 1970 on July 16, 1970 on each of the occasional pro rata labor income of KRW 7,221,02, and (2) 3,739,359, and (3) 72,102, of additional tax on the pro rata labor income of KRW 1970 on each of the following grounds:
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same shall apply to the order.
In accordance with Article 32 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff established a university of the Kado character, and operates the Kado hall as an affiliated hospital under the University Establishment Standard Decree, and the Defendant considered the Plaintiff’s management of the Mado hospital as a profit-making business referred to in the proviso of Article 1(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, and imposed occasional corporate tax for 1970 as stated in the order for the income accrued from the operation of the above affiliated hospital during the business year from March 1, 1968 to February 28, 1969. In addition, in accordance with Article 33(5) of the Corporate Tax Act (Article 33(4) of the former Corporate Tax Act), Article 83 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (Article 33(4) of the Corporate Tax Act), Article 83 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, the Class A employment income tax to be borne by the representative of the hospital in the business year is added to deductible expenses as a bonus for the representative, and imposed the above Class A employment income tax as stated in the order (2).
The plaintiff's attorney asserts that the plaintiff's disposition imposing corporate tax is invalid in violation of the principle of no taxation without the law, and that the disposition imposing Gap's employment income tax is null and void if the disposition imposing corporate tax is a disposition imposing corporate tax on the plaintiff's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's non-profit business under the Private University Act, the University Establishment Standard Decree, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Furthermore, the above disposition imposing Gap's employment income tax on the plaintiff's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated hospital's affiliated with the medical school's affiliated hospital'
In light of the above, it is reasonable to regard the act of maintaining a school, which is its own purpose, in full view of the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the Private School Act, and Article 10 (1) 6 of the University Establishment Standard Ordinance, as the case of the operation of a medical school established by a juristic person established under Article 32 of the Civil Act, or a medical school established by a school juristic person established under Article 10 of the Private School Act. In light of Article 1 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 6 of the Private School Act, the medical business under Article 1 (1) of the above Corporate Tax Act refers to the medical business for the purpose of earning profits from school management, and it shall be interpreted that the operation of a hospital affiliated with a medical school established by a medical school established under Article 10 of the Private School Act, and it does not fall under Article 1 (1) 4 of the Corporate Tax Act.
However, the defendant's issuance of the above law to the profit from the Kado character's hospital affiliated with the university established and operated by the plaintiff corporation (including the revenue of real estate rent of KRW 373,00,00, which is not pure hospital revenue, and the sales revenue of medicine sold by the women's sexual pharmacy, but this also does not constitute the profit from the management of the plaintiff's medical hospital affiliated with the university, which is to be the maintenance of the school) is the same as the above. Thus, the above corporate tax imposition disposition by the defendant is a defective disposition because it is subject to taxation under the Corporate Tax Act, and it can be imposed only on the business income subject to corporate tax pursuant to the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the above Corporate Tax Act. Since the above imposition of the Gap's income from the hospital affiliated with the hospital of this case is not subject to corporate tax, the defect of the Gap's income from this case can not be subject to corporate tax, and thus, the above disposition of imposition of additional tax cannot be imposed as a serious and obvious defect.
Thus, since the plaintiff's claim seeking confirmation of invalidity of each of the above dispositions is well-grounded, it shall be accepted and the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the losing party as per Disposition.
Judges Sick-su (Presiding Judge)