법인세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case which was used by the court as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of
2. Parts to be dried;
A. On No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 2 to No. 4" was added to "No. 3 to "No. 6".
B. On the third side of the judgment of the first instance, the following parts shall be added to the following parts.
【The interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the law, barring any special circumstances, in light of the principle of tax law, or the requirement of non-taxation or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds, and in particular, it accords with the principle of tax equity to strictly interpret the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions among the requirements of reduction and exemption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004)
C. The following parts shall be added in front of the 4th judgment of the first instance.
【Unless otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff, if a business to cover expenses falls under a business with its own proper purpose, it would result in unfair results to regard all the profit-making businesses as a business with its own proper purpose, which would result in the disposal of the fixed assets held by a non-profit corporation as income subject to taxation. However, if the business is used directly for its proper purpose business for three years as of the date of disposal of fixed assets, it shall not be allowed as an extension or analogical interpretation of Article 3(3)5 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which constitutes an exceptional provision on reduction or exemption, by excluding the purpose of the law that is subject to