The plaintiff corporation's 29 to 162 square meters on February 2, 198 shall be deemed as Gap's 1's 687's 29 square meters in Seoul, 198's 3.22 square meters (89.3 square meters in case of losses; hereinafter the above two real estate shall be deemed as 9.3 square meters in case of losses). The plaintiff corporation's 9.3 square meters in case of 19's 9's 19's 9's 19's 19's 9's 19's 9's 19's 19's 9's 19's 19's 9's 9's 9's 9's 9's 198's 9's 9's 9's 198's 1's 9's 9's 9's 198's 9's 1'6's 9's 1's 9's 's 1's '7.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is illegal; and

The Plaintiff asserts that Article 18(3)3 of the Enforcement Rule before and after the above amendment is invalid beyond the limit delegated by Article 18-3(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 43-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, which is a superior law, and thus, each part of the purport of the instant disposition, which is premised on the validity of each of the above Enforcement Rule, should be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, whether Article 18(3)3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act before and after the above amendment is a provision of invalidation beyond the limit delegated by the superior law is examined.

(5) The term “real estate size of a juristic person” under Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (excluding the cases of acquisition of real estate and its incidental facilities for non-business purposes; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article 18-1) means the area of the land which is owned by a juristic person for non-business purposes or for non-business purposes and is prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the limit of its value among interest paid by a juristic person to such real estate for each business year, and paragraph (3) of the same Article shall not include the area of the real estate which is prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the scope of its own assets under the provisions of subparagraph 3 of the Corporate Tax Act; and

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land used for parking lots is a real estate for non-business use, in principle, that is not directly related to the corporation’s business or for profit from the increase of land price, but for non-business use even if the corporation’s business needs arise. Thus, even if the land used for private-use parking lots is directly related to the corporation’s business, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land used for non-business use exceeds a certain size is a real estate for non-business use of the corporation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land used for a parking lot used for non-business use is invalid because it is directly related to the corporation’s business after the amendment of Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act, which is a provision that deviates from the delegation of the delegation of the Corporate Tax Act after the amendment, which provides for a specific standard based on the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides that real estate which is not directly related to the corporation’s business or is held for acquiring the profit from the increase of land price in light of the actual use status of the corporation.

Therefore, each provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act before and after the above amendment shall be valid, and the disposition of this case shall be in accordance with the above provisions, and shall not be found to be otherwise erroneous in the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

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