[법인세등부과처분취소][공1989.1.15.(840),118]
Article 16 subparag. 7 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
An investor referred to in Article 16 subparag. 7, Article 20, Article 30 subparag. 2, Article 46(2)7-2, etc. of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act refers only to an investor of the relevant corporation (excluding a minority shareholder under Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act) under the principle of no taxation without law, and it does not include an investor of the relevant corporation in the case of a corporation.
Article 16 subparag. 7 and Article 20 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 30 subparag. 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 46(2)7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellee
Head of Cheongju Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1127 delivered on February 19, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
With respect to paragraphs 1, 3
Article 16 subparag. 7 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 subparag. 3-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that the expenses for the maintenance of a company house used by an investor or a contributor of a corporation and his relatives shall not be included in the calculation of losses in the calculation of the income amount of the corporation which is subject to the corporate tax. Article 20 of the same Act and Article 46(2)7-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that the company house shall be calculated as the income amount of each business year of the corporation, regardless of the amount of the corporation's act or income, if the company house is provided to an officer who is the investor or contributor of the corporation or his relatives who is the investor of the corporation, or his relatives in the case that the investor of the corporation concerned is a corporation, the investor shall not be included in the calculation of the income amount of the corporation.
Therefore, the court below is just in holding that all the shares issued by the plaintiff company are owned by the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 is merely a shareholder of the non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 cannot be viewed as an investor of the plaintiff company, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out therein. It is nothing but an error in the judgment of the court below in other opinion. The argument is groundless
With respect to the second ground:
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below has duly confirmed the fact that the apartment of this case is used as the company house of an officer in charge of the Seoul Business Office of the plaintiff company from May 9, 1984 to now, and in light of the records, the fact finding by the court below is just and correct and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as pointed out, and there is no error of law
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)