1. Whether an organization is deemed a corporation;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the Korea Housing Association was established with the approval of the head of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government pursuant to Article 44 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916 of May 9, 2003; hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Construction Promotion Act") on June 14, 1995 as one of the members of the housing association of 10, 200, 200, 300, 47 m27 m2 and 434. The housing association of this case is not disqualified under its business area (Seoul Sungdong-dong 279-37 m2, 434.7 m2, 207 m2, 306 m2, 197 m2, 406 m2, 196 m2, 196 m2, 60 m2, 201, m27, m30.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion that the instant housing association is not an organization that is not an organization that is deemed a corporation under tax law because its continuity and homogeneity are not maintained, and that Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that an organization that satisfies the requirements of each subparagraph of paragraph (1) is naturally a corporation in the application of tax-related Acts, and that an organization that is not a corporation that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (2) of the same Article shall be deemed a corporation in the application of tax-related Acts, and that such an organization shall not be construed as a corporation that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (1), and that it shall not be construed as a requirement that the continuity and homogeneity be maintained.

In light of the relevant laws and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to unincorporated organizations deemed corporations under the Framework Act on National Taxes and the Corporate Tax Act, or misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence. Furthermore, according to the provisions of Article 1 subparagraph 2 (c) of the Corporate Tax Act, a non-profit domestic corporation is a non-profit domestic corporation under Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. Thus, if it is recognized as a corporation under Article 13 of the Corporate Tax Act, it shall be treated as a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, and it shall be treated as a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, and in order to be treated as a non-profit corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, it shall not meet the requirements of non-profit foreign corporation

2. Whether the substance over form violates the principle of substantial taxation;

According to the records, each member of the housing association under the Housing Construction Promotion Act ordinarily invests in his own land or house, and the association constructs and sells apartment houses and commercial buildings in addition to those to be sold to the association members by one household, and sells them to the general public, and reduces the construction cost to be borne by each member by appropriating part of the construction cost. The housing association of this case generally sells the remaining apartment house of 18th floor by reconstruction from the association members with the site and store, etc. invested by the association members and selling them to the association members first, and then allocate the income therefrom to the association members according to their share ratio and appropriate funds for the construction cost to be paid by each member. However, as long as the housing association of this case is a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, as it is a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, the housing association of this case is the main body of the housing association of this case and is a non-profit domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, the income is subject to the imposition of dividend income tax to the association members if the income is distributed to the association members.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the court below's imposition of global income tax on the plaintiffs in this case is fair since it is in accordance with the principle of substantial taxation, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the principle of substantial taxation as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it is likely that the plaintiffs' income derived from the general sale of reconstruction housing in this case constitutes dividend income received from an organization deemed as a corporation under Article 17 (1) 2 of the Income Tax Act, although the plaintiffs' income in this case constitutes dividend income received from the housing association in this case.

The Supreme Court Decision cited in the ground of appeal by the defendant is inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since it differs from its matter.

3. Conclusion

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 Lee Kang-won (Presiding Justice)