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

A. The plaintiff is a reconstruction association composed of the owners of 85 and 44 households on the ground of the land, Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and obtained authorization for the establishment of the housing association from the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on July 13, 2001, the approval of the business plan on December 31, 2001, the approval of the change of the housing association on April 19, 2002, and the approval of the change of the housing association on July 22, 2003. The registration of the incorporation of the corporation was completed under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents on July 23, 2003 from the head of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

B. On September 21, 2001, the Plaintiff sold all of the above apartment units around 2003 by constructing 1/78 households on the above ground after the Plaintiff and Malim Construction Co., Ltd. jointly implemented a reconstruction project and entered into a reconstruction project agreement with Malim Construction Co., Ltd. to undertake a reconstruction project, and after concluding a reconstruction project agreement with Malim Construction Co., Ltd. to perform a reconstruction project.

C. On May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff’s members filed a lawsuit against the Defendant, etc. on the revocation of the disposition rejecting the request for rectification of global income tax on the ground that, among the rebuilding apartments constructed by the Plaintiff on May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff’s members filed a final return on global income tax base for the global income tax for 2003 years after adding up the amount of income from the amount of income generated from the sale of 34 households of general apartment units except for 44 households of apartment units for the portion of apartment units sold in lots, and filed a claim for correction by asserting that the initial return was erroneous on September 30, 2004.

D. On January 10, 2007, when the lawsuit was pending, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office imposed corporate tax on the above revenue amount on the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant, etc. of taxation data to the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the above general sales revenue amount constituted a non-profit domestic corporation and the above general sales revenue amount constituted income accrued from the profit-making business of a non-profit domestic corporation. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff and again

E. On March 1, 2007, the Defendant, etc., revoked ex officio a rejection request for correction of global income tax filed by the Plaintiff’s members based on the above taxation data, and subsequently rendered a new decision of correction. The Defendant, on March 1, 2007, issued a disposition of imposition of each corporate tax as stated in the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “instant disposition”), and again, disposed of the amount of income from the above general sale as dividends to the Plaintiff’s members, and issued a notice of changes in the amount of income, as stated in the Plaintiff’s claim (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”) on March 28, 2007 (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions and the notice of changes in the amount of income (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

F. On May 30, 2007, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Tax Tribunal for a national tax trial on each of the above dispositions, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s request on August 24, 2007.

【Unstrificable facts】 1-3, Gap evidence 1-2-1-5, Gap evidence 4-1-2, Gap evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 1 through 3-10, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1-2, Eul evidence 5-2, and Eul evidence 6-7, respectively.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that each of the dispositions of this case shall be unlawful and revoked for the following reasons.

(1) Even though the Plaintiff is not a person responsible for separate bookkeeping under the Income Tax Act, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions based on Article 161 of the Income Tax Act and Article 209 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, on the premise that the Plaintiff is a person responsible

(2) Despite the fact that the person to whom income accrued from a reconstruction project is the implementer, the Defendant rendered each of the instant dispositions on the premise that the person to whom income accrued was attributed is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s members.

(3) Even if the person to whom the above income accrued is the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s members, the time when the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s members realized the above income is the time of disposing of the apartment house for the ownership of the association members that was sold due to the said reconstruction project, and the fact that the above apartment house was not yet disposed of to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s members constitutes a taxation on unrealized income.

(4) Despite the fact that the calculation method of common expenses corresponding to each amount of revenues of general apartment units and apartment units sold in lots should be based on the sale price pursuant to Article 96(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, the Defendant calculated the common expenses based on the sale price.

(5) The amount of the Plaintiff’s income disposition with dividends was double calculated as much as the amount of the corporate tax imposed on the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

The same as the entries in the attached statutes (hereinafter referred to as all the statutes cited shall refer to the relevant statutes in the attached statutes).

C. Determination

(1) As to the plaintiff's first argument

In light of the provisions of Article 18(1) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, Article 10(1) of the Addenda (Act No. 6852, Dec. 30, 2002), Article 1 subparag. 2(b), Article 2(1)1, Article 3(1)1, and Article 3(2)1 of the Corporate Tax Act, the Plaintiff constitutes a non-profit domestic corporation that is liable to pay corporate tax on income arising from a profit-making business in each business year. Considering the overall arguments and arguments in subparagraph 4, 5-1, 5-2, the Plaintiff’s each disposition of this case can be acknowledged on the premise that the Defendant is a non-profit domestic corporation that is liable to pay corporate tax to the Plaintiff as above and falls under the separate person from the book-keeping under Article 113(1) of the Corporate Tax Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

(2) As to the plaintiff's second and third arguments

In full view of the contents of evidence No. 3-1 through 5, evidence No. 4-1 and evidence No. 4-2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, the Housing Reconstruction and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") shall recognize that the housing reconstruction and improvement project implementer implements a reconstruction project in such a way as to reduce the construction cost to be borne by each member by additionally building and selling houses and commercial buildings in addition to apartment units to be sold to one household by one household to the association member. The plaintiff also constructs 78 units of apartment units with the building site and housing from the association members and constructs 44 units of apartment units and sells them first to the association members, and then allocates the income from such apartment units to each association member's share in the income tax, so long as the income accrued by the plaintiff is appropriated to the construction cost to be borne by the plaintiff and the association members, it is reasonable to view that all income accrued to the plaintiff's association members after the second.

(3) As to the plaintiff's fourth argument

As seen earlier, Article 96(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act, which the Plaintiff claims against the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff constitutes the person liable for separate entry under the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, Article 76(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which is the basis for each of the above dispositions, also provides similar provisions to Article 96(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the said Income Tax Act. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the above provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act should be examined. Article 76(6) of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the common deductible expenses shall be calculated in proportion to the amount of profit-making business and other business revenue or sales in cases where the non-profit corporation maintains separate accounting of the same profit-making business and other business profit and loss. However, in exceptional cases where there is no individual deductible expenses or it is unreasonable to calculate the apartment with such other reasons, it is difficult to uniformly calculate the rebuilding apartment amount based on the standard prescribed by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service’s item of expenses for common deductible expenses, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful for the association members to be calculated based on the rebuilding price.

(4) As to the Plaintiff’s fifth argument

At the same time, as seen earlier, the income from the general sale of the reconstruction apartment of this case becomes the business income of a non-profit corporation and becomes subject to corporate tax. At the same time, it becomes a dividend income to the Plaintiff’s members and becomes subject to income tax. However, the problem of double taxation is resolved through the dividend tax deduction system under Article 56 of the Income Tax Act, and it cannot be said that each disposition of this case is unlawful for such reason. Thus, the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Dong-gu (Presiding Judge)