Whether real estate for a golf course business constitutes real estate for non-business use in case where the income amount for a golf course business is less than that for an additional business after a corporation operating a golf course business added a natural farming source

원고는 부동산관리법, 건설업, 관광휴양업, 서비스업 등을 목적사업으로 하는 법인인바, 피고는 원고가 보유하고 있는 ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ읍 ㅇㅇ리 1외 260필지 토지 354,094평과 건물 1,362평의 ㅇㅇ골프장은 1987사업년도에 있어서의 그 수입금액이 금 1,630,629,031원으로서 원고의 같은 사업년도 총수입금액 54,800,532,458원의 2.97퍼센트에 불과하여 법인세법 제18조의3 제1항 제3호, 같은법시행령 제43조의2 제5항, 같은법시행규칙(1989.3.6.재무부령 제1780호로 개정되기 이전의 것, 이하 같다) 제18조 제3항 제8호, 제5항 제2호의 규정에 의할 때 위 골프장업은 원고의 주업이라 할 수 없어 위 골프장은 원고법인의 업무에 직접 관련이 없는 부동산에 해당한다는 이유로 원고법인의 위 사업년도에 있어서의 차입금 지급이자 금 3,558,283,703원 중 위 골프장의 부동산가액에 상당하는 금 806,346,838원 및 유지관리비(재산세) 금 139,217,510원 합계금 945,564,348원을 손금불산입하여 1989.3.31. 원고에 대하여 법인세 금 410,053,150원 및 그 방위세 금 93,610,870원을 부과고지한 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없다.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The above golf course owned by the plaintiff naturally constitutes real estate for business purposes under Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. If this golf course constitutes a golf course owned by a corporation which mainly runs the operation of a golf course under Article 18 (3) 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, or if it is viewed as a real estate for non-business purposes under Article 18 (5) 2 of the same Enforcement Rule, the main business decision of concurrent operation refers to a business with a large amount of revenue, the above provisions are invalid because they are unreasonably limited to the criteria for determining real estate for non-business purposes without delegation of the above statutes.

나. 원고는 1963년 위 골프장운영을 주된 사업목적으로 설립된 이래 8년 이상 위 골프장업을 거의 유일한 사업으로 영위해오다가 1974년경부터 ㅇㅇ군에 관광객이용시설인 자연농원 을 건설하여 1976년경부터 이를 위 골프장업과 함께 관광사업의 일환으로 운영해왔으며 1987년도의 위 골프장수입의 그 부동산가액에 대한 비율이 27.5퍼센트에 이르고 있는바 이와 같은 원고법인의 사업목적이나 운영실태에 비추어 위 골프장은 당연히 원고법인의 업무용부동산이라 할 것이고 새로운 사업이 추가되었다는 사정에 의하여 그 성격이 달라지는 것이 아니라 할 것이고, 아니면 위 골프장업과 자연농원사업은 다같이 관광진흥업 및 동 시행령상 관광객이용시설업에 해당하고 세법상으로도 모두 서비스업에 해당하는 것이어서 위 양자의 사업전부가 원고법인의 주업에 해당하는 것이라 할 것인 한편 위 골프장의 1987년도 수입금액이 금 1,630,629,031원으로서 부동산가액 금 5,917,641,735원의 27.5퍼센트 이상 되고 있으므로 위 시행규칙 제18조 제3항 제8호의 규정에 의하더라도 위 골프장은 비업무용 부동산에 해당하지 않는 것이고,

C. The above site is currently designated as a development-restricted zone under the Urban Planning Act, and it is impossible to divert it for other purposes. This constitutes the prohibition or restriction of the use under Article 18(4)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act, which also constitutes a real estate for non-business use. Thus, the disposition of this case is deemed to be a single part and illegal.

3. Review of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. According to Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act, the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree among interest on loans paid by a corporation which owns real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation in each business year shall not be included in the calculation of the income amount of each business year; and

(b) Article 43-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides for the method of calculating the amount of non-deductible expenses under the same Act, and Article 18-3 (5) of the same Act provides that "real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation concerned" means real estate prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy in consideration of the period after the acquisition of the real estate concerned, the amount of income and buildings generated from the real estate concerned, the

C. Article 18 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the real estate for non-business use referred to in Article 43-2 (5) of the Decree refers to the real estate falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and the real estate owned by a juristic person which is the main business of operating a golf course or a golf practice range shall be excluded from the real estate owned by a juristic person which has not less than 7/100 of the real estate price for one year (Article 18 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act was amended to be the main business of a juristic person on March 6, 1989, which was amended to be the main business of a juristic person on April 4, 199;

D. According to Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the above case, since the acquisition of the pertinent real estate was prohibited or restricted by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes, and two years have not passed since such prohibition or restriction was cancelled, it shall not be deemed non-business real estate, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3);

E. Determination of main business under Article 18(5)2 of the above Enforcement Rule is deemed to be a main business with a large amount of revenue.

4. Judgment on the issue

A. We examine the Plaintiff’s first proposal.

Article 18 (3) 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation shall set a golf course as one of non-business real estate and operates a golf course as its main business, and that the amount of income for one year is not less than 7/100 of the real estate price, it shall be excluded from the application, and that the main business shall be determined in accordance with the majority of the amount of income under Article 18 (5) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act shall be determined by the parent law and the Enforcement Decree, and that the detailed interpretation standards concerning the passage period after acquisition, revenue amount, size of buildings, etc., and the degree of business relationship, etc. shall be determined. Therefore

B. We examine the plaintiff's second claim.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제2호증의 1(심사청구서), 갑 제4호증의 1(심판청구서), 갑 제6호증(법인등기부등본), 갑 제7호증(정관), 갑 제8,9호증(각 사업자등록증), 갑 제10,11호증(각 관광사업등록증), 갑 제12호증(대차대조표), 갑 제13호증(손익계산서), 갑 제14호증의 1(등록사항통보), 갑 제17호증(ㅇㅇ골프장토지명세), 갑 제18호증(결산보고서), 갑 제19호증(회계보조장부), 갑 제20호증(결정서)의 각 기재와 증인 조창행의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고법인은 1963.12.23. 골프장경영을 주된 목적사업으로 설립되어 1967.11.22. 당시 시행되고 있던 관광사업진흥법(1967.2.28.법률 제1896호)에 의하여 관광휴양업으로 등록을 마친 이래 영업을 해왔는데 위 등록 당시 골프장용토지는 125필지 241,101평이었고 그 후 1975년경까지 계속 위 사업용토지를 취득하여(마지막 취득시기는 1985년) 이 사건 과세 당시에는 모두 260필지 354,094평을 보유하게 되었으며 그 지목은 전답, 잡종지, 임야 등으로 되어 있으나 그 중 임야와 잡종지가 가장 많았고 모두 골프장의 부지로 이용된 사실, 원고법인은 위 골프장사업과 관련하여 주사업장을 ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ동 1로, 업태를 서비스, 음식, 소매, 종목을 골프장, 식당, 양어, 연초로 사업자등록을 하고 이를 거의 유일한 사업으로 영위하여 오다가 1974년경부터 ㅇㅇ군에 종합관광휴양시설인 자연농원 의 건설에 착수하여 1976.4.18. 이를 개장하게 되었고 이와 관련하여 주사업장을 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ면 ㅇㅇ리 310, 업태를 서비스, 음식, 숙박, 소매, 부동산, 종목을 입장료수입, 한양식, 식당으로 사업자등록을 한 사실, 그런데 위 관광사업진흥법이 1975.12.31. 관광사업법으로 개정됨에 따라 원고는 위 법 제2조 제4호 규정에 의하여 위 골프장에 대하여는 관광객이용시설업 중 골프장업으로, 자연농원에 대하여는 관광객이용시설업 중 종합휴양업으로 등록하였다가 1986.12.31. 관광진흥법이 제정, 시행되면서 위 법 제3조 제1항 제3호, 동 시행령 제2조 제3호에 의하여 위 골프장은 관광객이용시설업 중 골프장업으로, 자연농원은 관광객이용시설업 중 종합휴양업으로 등록을 마친 사실(위 관광진흥법시행령 제2조 제3호 다목의 골프장업에 관한 규정은 1989.7.1. 체육시설의 이용, 설치에 관한법률이 제정되면서 삭제되었다), 그 밖에 원고법인은 1975년경부터 건물관리용역 등의 사업을 추가하였으나 이는 ㅇㅇ그룹소유 빌딩의 용역관리를 하는 것으로서 사업상 별다른 비중을 차지하지 못했던 사실, 1987사업년도에 있어서 원고법인의 총수입금액은 금 54,800,523,458원이고 그 중 ㅇㅇ골프장과 자연농원경영으로 인한 수입금액이 합계 금 20,835,768,489원으로 전체의 38.02퍼센트 정도되어 원고의 사업 중 가장 수입금액이 많았으며 그 중 위 골프장의 수입금액은 금 1,630,629,031원이고 당시의 위 골프장부동산가액은 금 5,917,641,735원으로 위 과세년도에 있어서 위 골프장의 수입금액이 그 부동산가액대비 27.5퍼센트 정도되는 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없다.

I think, the purport of the provision that excludes the amount equivalent to interest paid on real estate for non-business use under Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act from deductible expenses is more than necessary by a corporation to promote a sound operation of a corporation by preventing its investment in real estate or possession of real estate for speculative purposes, and to ensure the appropriateness of the ownership of land for non-business use. In determining whether a real estate for non-business use is a real estate, the reasons for acquisition of the real estate and the lapse period after its acquisition, the amount of income from the real estate, the area of the real estate, and the degree of the relationship with the business should be reasonably considered. In case there are more than one corporation's business, it shall be decided whether to conduct the main business in consideration of the relation between the businesses, profitability, the person commencing the business

In the case of this case, although the plaintiff has been running a business based on the above golf course management for about 8 years, the above golf course business and the nature of the business belongs to the tourist-use facility business under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and more specifically, the above golf course business and the nature of the business belongs to the previous tourist-use facility business, and it is common in that it provides tourists with facilities suitable for amusement, recreation, and sports and provides them for use by tourists, and it cannot be viewed as concurrently running a separate business without mutual relation. It does not change just because the location of the place of business is different or the public nature of the use is different. In addition, if a corporation operating a golf course as its main business for a considerable period of time has added a new business, it does not change the nature of the previous business in accordance with the Acts and subordinate statutes which were enacted late after adding a new business, and it does not make a new corporation not receive any unfair treatment of the previous business due to the excellent revenue of the previous business operation, and it does not have any economic benefits to prevent the new business operation of a golf course.

As seen earlier, considering the fact that the above provision of the Enforcement Rule, which excludes golf club business from non-business real estate, was revised as being a main business, as seen earlier, the above provision of the above Enforcement Rule was amended as not requiring the main business. The above golf club business of the Plaintiff corporation is a main business of the natural farm business, and the entire golf club business of the Plaintiff corporation is a main business. Meanwhile, in the above business year, the amount of the above golf club revenue exceeds 28/100 of the real estate price, and exceeds 7/100 of the real estate price as stipulated in Article 18 (3) 8 of the above Enforcement Rule. Thus, the above golf club real estate does not constitute non-business real estate as stipulated in the above Act.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case on the premise that the real estate owned by the plaintiff constitutes real estate for non-business use is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is legitimate without having to determine the remainder of the plaintiff's remaining arguments, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.