2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 8 minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, as a juristic person operating mutual savings and finance business, newly constructed a five-story underground floor building (hereinafter referred to as "land and building in this case") on the 403rd 1st 21th Do, Cheongju-si, 21th Do, 403.6 m., Do, and the 1st 5th m2th m2th m3 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1st m3m m3, hereinafter referred to as "the first m3m m4th m3, 1987"), and (1) from July 1, 1987 to June 30, 198, the 25th m3m m3m 27m m3 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1m m4th m3th m3, 198, hereinafter referred to as "the 200,000th m27m m320) of the above building.

(2) On May 2, 192, the defendant calculated the rent of the above part of the lease of the first and second years of this case as 10% of the interest rate of the above part of the lease of this case as 10% of the interest rate of the above part of the lease of this case, and the above rent of this case is less than 351,167,593 won for the first fiscal year of the above lease of this case, which is the real estate value of the second fiscal year of the tax year of the tax year of this case as 68,906,858 won for the second fiscal year of the tax year of this case, and the above tax amount is less than 5/100 of the tax amount of the above lease of this case, based on the value of the above lease of this case calculated as above, the above part of the interest in each fiscal year of the plaintiff's above tax year of this case as 'the change of corporate tax rate ② the corporate tax amount calculated after the reduction of corporate tax amount and the tax amount of the above tax amount already paid by the plaintiff.

【Premium】

The facts that have no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 3 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 4, 5 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 16 ( grounds for calculation), 17 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), Eul evidence 2-1 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 2, 3 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 4, 5 (Account of each additional tax amount), 16 (Calculation basis), 17 (Calculation of the amount corresponding to non-business real estate), 17 (Calculation of the amount corresponding to non-business real estate), 3-1 (written decision), 2, 3 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 4 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 5 (written decision), 1 through 3 (written decision of correction of each tax amount), 5-2 (written decision), 5-1 through 3 (written lease contract), 6-1 through 3 (written lease contract of each party).

2. Claims of the parties and relevant statutes;

A. The parties' assertion

(1) As to the defendant's assertion that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, (2) the plaintiff's argument that each of the leases Nos. 1 and 2 of this case does not constitute non-business non-business real estate under the above Corporate Tax Act, but the disposition of this case is unlawful, and even if each of the leases constitutes non-business real estate under the above Corporate Tax Act, it shall not be deemed as losses, and even if each of the above leases constitutes non-business real estate under the above corporate tax law, it shall not be deemed as the whole interest corresponding to the leased portion, but shall be deemed as losses, and only the interest paid equivalent to the ratio below 5% shall be deemed as the whole interest paid.

B. Provisions of the statute

Article 18-3 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4283, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year from among interest on loans paid by a corporation which has no direct connection with the business of the corporation under subparagraph 3, and that ① the term "real estate which has no direct connection with the business of the corporation" (hereinafter referred to as non-business real estate) shall be prescribed in the Enforcement Decree of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195, Dec. 31, 199; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree"), Article 43-2 (5) of the Act provides that the amount of revenues of the real estate concerned shall be included in deductible expenses for the period of acquisition of the real estate concerned, revenues of the real estate concerned, and the amount of revenues of the real estate concerned for non-business purposes calculated by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, with respect to the total revenues amount before 18198.

3. Judgment on the parties' arguments

(a) Whether it falls under non-business real estate;

(1) Fact finding

In accordance with Article 43-2(2) of the Decree and Article 18(5) of the Rule, the value of the entire land and buildings of this case, as stated in the "reasonable value calculation" of the value list of real estate leased in each fiscal year of this case, shall be calculated by calculating the value of the entire land and buildings of this case as the total value of the book value and the total amount of the standard market value pursuant to Article 43-2(2) of the Decree and Article 18(5) of the Rules, and the value of each building shall be calculated by calculating the acquisition value, and the value of each building shall be calculated by calculating the utility ratio of each of the above leased parts to the entire land and buildings of this case, and then by multiplying the above utility ratio by the total value of the entire land and buildings of this case, the first leased portion shall be calculated by multiplying by the above utility ratio. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12728, Jun. 30, 198; Presidential Decree No. 10683, Jun. 30, 1990>

(C) The Plaintiff leased the above 1 rent amount to KRW 50,00,000 during the first fiscal year, and the above 2 rent amount to KRW 70,00,00 during the second fiscal year.

The fixed deposit interest rate of one year in each contract term as of June 30, 1988 and June 30, 1990 is 10%.

【Premium】

The evidence and the result of the on-site inspection of the party members under the above Paragraph 1, the result of an abnormal appraisal of appraiser, the whole purport of the pleading.

(2) Determination on the above facts of recognition

In full view of the above facts, the value of assets under Article 43-2(2) of the Decree and Article 18(5) of the Rules of Article 43-2(5) of the Decree is 288,852,745 won, the above part of the first lease is 598,878,941 won, and the above part of the lease is 5,000,000 won (per 50,000,000 won for lease x 10%) and the above part of the second lease is 7,00,000 won (per 70,000,0000 won for lease x 10%). Since each revenue of the above part of the lease is 5% [the above part of the lease 14,42,637 won, 28,285,294, 294, 297, 297, 2975 x 974, 297, 974).

B. Determination on the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion

The plaintiff asserts that even if the rent revenue of each of the above leases is less than 5% of the real estate price, it is unfair to accept the total amount of interest paid for each of the above leases as deductible expenses, so it is necessary to deny the deductible expenses only for the portion below 5% of the above lease price. However, each of the provisions of the Corporate Tax Act on the non-deductible of interest paid for non-business real estate in the calculation of deductible expenses is to improve the financial structure by reducing dependence on the company's capital and to prevent the transaction of real estate speculation at the same time to operate corporate funds as productive capital, and it is clear in light of the legal principle that the corporation violates the above purport of the provision so that interest paid for non-business real estate should not be included in deductible expenses. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion against this is not accepted.

(c) Calculation of tax amount;

However, as calculated earlier, the value of each of the above leases of non-business real estate shall be deemed as KRW 288,852,745, and KRW 598,878,941, the second lease portion shall be deemed as KRW 288,85, and the second lease portion shall be deemed as KRW 598,878,941, and if corporate tax and defense tax for the plaintiff is re-calculated for the above fiscal year by deducting the total interest paid for each of the above amounts from the deductible expenses, it shall be the amount of the entry in the "tax column calculated as a non-business judgment" in the attached Form No. 1.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified only for the part exceeding the amount stated in the "justifiable excess tax invoice B" column, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

April 8, 1994

Judges Gangwon-gu (Presiding Judge) Han-Jil-gu