[법인세부과처분취소][공1994.3.1.(963),745]
The case holding that in case where a corporation is designated as an urban design area after acquiring land and becomes subject to the restrictions for joint development with neighboring land, such land shall be excluded from non-business land.
As a result of dividing the land used as a swimming pool by the Ministry of National Defense into the 11 lots of adjacent state owned by the Ministry of National Defense for military necessity according to the standards for the implementation of urban design of the sea beach area, which is the public announcement of Busan Metropolitan City, the shipping beach area, etc., the construction of all the land included in the above plot of land can not be independently constructed by the corporation, and if the State does not plan to jointly develop the above land and the above land of the corporation in use, it shall be deemed that the corporation designated as an urban design area after acquiring the above land and was limited to the use of the corporation's business by being subject to the restriction of joint development with adjacent land for non-business use. Thus, the land is excluded from non-business use.
Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 18 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1818 of Apr. 4, 1990), Article 2 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1835 of Oct. 20, 1990)
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others
Head of Seogsan Tax Office
Busan High Court Decision 92Gu3885 delivered on June 25, 1993
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the decision of the court below, the plaintiff acquired 7,269 square meters from Jun. 3, 1969 to use it as a swimming pool after acquiring 7,269 square meters, which is the land of this case, but the land of this case is the land of this case on July 2, 1984 under Article 8-2 of the Building Act (amended by Act No. 3644 of Dec. 31, 1982), which is the land of this case, according to the criteria for the implementation of urban design on the land at the Busan Metropolitan City and the shipping beach pursuant to Article 8-2 of the Construction Act (amended by Act No. 3644 of Dec. 31, 1982). As a result, in order to construct it on this land, the plaintiff cannot independently construct all the land included in the above demarcated land as a site and there is no plan to jointly develop the land of this case.
In fact, the Plaintiff’s use of the instant land in connection with the Plaintiff’s business shall be deemed limited since the Plaintiff acquired the instant land as an urban design zone and should be designated as an adjacent land and should be jointly developed with the neighboring land. Thus, the instant land shall be excluded from the taxation period under Article 18-3(1)3 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 43-2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 18(4)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1818, Apr. 4, 1990); Article 2 of the Addenda (Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1835, Oct. 22, 190). 30, 1991>
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.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)