이 사건 건물들은 사용수익기부자산에 해당됨[국승]
Suwon District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-2011
The instant building constitutes the donated property for use.
Since the Plaintiff operates a special hospital for the elderly, the real estate in this case is not a statutory donation but a donation for use and profit.
Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act
Seoul High Court 2014Nu62199 (Law No. 13, 2015)
Although the donated property is claimed to the effect that it is not a donated property for use, the donated property for use and profit.
the use of assets as well as profits from assets.
(B) The instant special hospital for the elderly belongs to the ownership of Gyeonggi-do and is operated by its independent accounting unit; and
The plaintiff cannot obtain direct profits due to the operation of the special hospital for the elderly of this case.
Even if the plaintiff is entrusted with the special hospital for the elderly of this case in accordance with the entrusted operation agreement with Gyeonggi-do.
In this case, the special hospital for the elderly is used and Article 24(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is used.
The meaning of "use" as provided for in item (g) is equal to that of a person to whom profits accrue, such as the plaintiff's assertion.
There is no basis to interpret the concept as the concept (this case's donated property constitutes the donated property for use and profit.)
whether or not the donation property of this case can be deemed a statutory donation or not, directly,
In the meantime, as seen earlier, the donation property of this case does not constitute a statutory donation.
Therefore, the plaintiff shall dispose of the donation property of this case as the profit-making donation property, but depreciation shall be made.
by means of such method as may be included in deductible expenses.
3) Sub-determination
Therefore, all of the above arguments by the plaintiff are without merit.
3. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion shall be decided.
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Medical Corporations 00 Medical Foundation
00.Tax Secretary
Suwon District Court 2013Guhap2011
December 09, 2014
oly 13, 2015
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the disposition of imposition of 00 won (200 won for the business year of 2007, 2008, 2000 won for the business year of 2009, 2000 won for the business year of 2009, 000 won for the business year of 2009, 200 won for the business year of 2010, and 000 won for the business year of 201
1. Details of the disposition;
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when using "00 won (the amount calculated on a monthly basis from August 8, 201 to December 201)" in Section 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the amount of five months from August 2011 to December 201." Thus, it refers to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff asserts that the operation of the special hospital for the elderly was illegal since January 1, 201, when the operation of the special hospital for the elderly began to be defined as one of the profit-making businesses, which are non-profit domestic corporations. Thus, the operation of the special hospital for the elderly does not fall under profit-making businesses, and the special hospital for the elderly does not fall under the operation of the special hospital for the elderly, and thus the plaintiff cannot make profits from it because it is independent tax accounts. The business entity of the special hospital for the elderly of this case is Gyeonggi-do, and the plaintiff is only entrusted management. Thus, since the plaintiff's donation property of this case contributed to Gyeonggi-do is merely a statutory donation,
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
1) Determination as to whether the donation property of this case constitutes a statutory donation
Considering the aforementioned facts and the aforementioned evidence, the donation property of this case does not constitute a statutory donation under Article 24(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same). A) The Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22577, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) was amended, and the operation of a special hospital for the elderly is interpreted as a profit-making business even before expressly stipulating the operation of a special hospital for the elderly as profit-making business. The date of concluding an agreement on the entrustment of a special hospital for the elderly (amended by August 16, 201) and the date of permission for establishment (amended by Act No. 10423, Aug. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the date of donation (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22501, Sep. 5, 2011>
2) Determination as to whether the pertinent donated property constitutes the donated property for use and profit
In full view of the facts acknowledged above and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the pertinent donated property constitutes the donated property under Article 24(1)2 (g) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.
A) The Plaintiff cannot earn profits through the operation of the instant special hospital for the elderly. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot obtain profits therefrom.