The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-1, 3-1, 4-1, 7-1, 3-2, and 3-3 of Jae Jae-1, and all the arguments, and there is no other evidence to decide on them.

A. For the purpose of providing increased education, the Plaintiff is a school juristic person established under the Private School Act, and the income accrued from the transfer of land, etc., which is an endowment owned by the school juristic person under Article 67-3 (1) 1 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (wholly amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same shall apply) for the purpose of using it for educational business, the Plaintiff constitutes a juristic person that is exempt from special surtax as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. However, on September 30, 1975, the Plaintiff did not submit an application for tax reduction and exemption under the same Article of the same Act with respect to gains accruing from the transfer of land, etc., which is an endowment owned by the school juristic person under the same Act, on February 1, 1991.

B. Accordingly, the defendant transferred each real estate of this case to the plaintiff on February 7, 1992, but recognized that the plaintiff did not file an application for tax reduction or exemption within the prescribed period, and on September 30, 1992, the acquisition value of each real estate of this case was not clear due to the acquisition increase of the actual transaction value, and on September 30, 1992, the above value was 681,543,676 won after deducting the amount calculated by dividing the standard market price at the time of the transfer by the standard market price at the time at the time of the acquisition by the value at the time of the acquisition, and the special surtax amounting to 170,385,919 won and additional tax amounting to 68,495,138 won, plus 238,81,057 won which the plaintiff shall pay as corporate tax from time to time in October 1992 (this case).

2. Whether the taxation disposition of this case is legitimate

A. Both parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the taxation of this case is legitimate in light of the above recognized facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, first, even if the plaintiff did not submit an application for tax reduction and exemption within the period prescribed in Article 67-3 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act and Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the purport of the above provision is the protection and protection of the school juristic person established under the Private School Act. Thus, if the plaintiff transferred each of the real estate of this case, which is the basic property, for the purpose of using it for educational business, and used it for the purpose of using it, the defendant should be exempted from the special surtax which is the principal tax, but if he used it for the purpose, the tax disposition without reduction and exemption is unlawful. Second, even if it is not a domestic business, the defendant can know that the transfer value is calculated based on the standard market price, but if the acquisition value is not known, the transfer value is calculated based on the standard market

B. Determination of party members

(1) Whether filing an application for tax reduction or exemption within the period prescribed by the former Regulation of Tax Reduction or Exemption Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is the requirement for tax reduction or exemption.

Article 67-3 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act provides that income falling under any of the following subparagraphs of a school foundation established under the Private School Act shall be exempted from special surtax under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 67-3 (1) 1 of the same Act provides that the exemption from special surtax under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall apply only where a school foundation submits a tax reduction and exemption under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 55-3 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a corporation which intends to be exempted from special surtax under Article 67-3 of the same Act shall submit an amount of tax reduction and exemption as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy along with the tax base return for the business year to which the transfer date belongs. Thus, the purport of each of the above provisions of this Act is that a corporation shall be exempted from special surtax within the prescribed period for the purpose of receiving the tax reduction and exemption under the same Act, and that the Plaintiff shall not be allowed to accept the above application for tax reduction and exemption from the special surtax within the prescribed period of the transfer date.

(2) The method of calculating gains from transfer, which is a tax base for special taxation, where the transfer value is known, but the acquisition value is unknown;

Article 59-2 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the tax base of special surtax shall be the transfer margin accruing from the transfer of land, buildings, rights to real estate, and stocks or equity shares as determined by the Presidential Decree, and Article 59-2 (3) of the same Act provides that the transfer margin under paragraph (1) of the same Article shall be the amount obtained by subtracting the following amounts from the transfer margin: Provided, That in cases where the transfer value and acquisition value are unclear, the transfer value and acquisition value shall be the amount determined by the standard market price at the time of transfer and those at the time of acquisition, respectively, as determined by the Presidential Decree, and Article 124-2 (9) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that in applying Article 59-2 (3) of the Act, where either of the transfer value or acquisition value is unclear, the acquisition value and disposal of each real estate shall be the amount computed by the following formula:

3. Conclusion

Therefore, in light of the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the taxation disposition in this case is legitimate, so the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who lost.

April 22, 1994