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

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit medical foundation that operates ○ Hospital.

B. On May 27, 2008, the Plaintiff donated the instant land (hereinafter referred to as “instant donation property”) to △△Do in order to be selected as an entrusted operator of the hospital specializing in older persons (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”).

C. The Plaintiff treated the book value of the donated property of this case as a statutory donation for the business year of 2008 and filed a corporate tax return for each business year.

D. On August 16, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with △△ Governor on the entrusted operation of the instant hospital, and the instant hospital commenced medical treatment on September 5, 201 with the permission for the establishment of a special hospital for senior citizens from the △△ Mayor on August 31, 2011.

E. The director of the regional regional office of Do, Do, and Do, the head of the regional office of Si/Gun/Gu notified the Defendant of the result of the integrated corporate tax investigation of the Plaintiff, the book value of the pertinent donated property in deductible expenses, and the non-deductible expenses in deductible expenses in the business year of 2011 by dividing the non-deductible expenses in use

F. On June 11, 2012, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of corporate tax to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

G. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 17, 2012, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on October 14, 2013.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Defendant determined the instant hospital’s business as profit-making property and disposed of the instant property by deeming the instant hospital’s business as the Plaintiff’s profit-making business, the hospital specialized in the elderly was stipulated as profit-making business from January 1, 201, and the instant hospital was independent tax accounting, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot make profits therefrom. Since the Plaintiff is a business entity of the hospital specialized in the elderly, Gyeonggi-do and the Plaintiff is only entrusted management, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff operated the instant hospital as a profit-making business and used the donated property. The instant disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s disposal of the donated property as statutory donation, i.e., whether it constitutes a lawful donation of the entire pleadings, but can be included in the corporation’s deductible expenses. Thus, even if it is given free donation to an unrelated party, if it is directly related to the business of the corporation, it shall not be included in the deductible expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du1918, Nov. 13, 2002). Since the donated property is related to the business of the Plaintiff’s operation of the hospital, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a statutory donation. ② The Plaintiff’s disposal of the donated property as statutory donation of this case constitutes the pertinent donated property under Article 24(1)2 (g) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 201; hereinafter the same)’s disposal of the donated property from the State or a local government, or the corporation under Article 73(1)6(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

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.