Article 72 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The reasons why the member states this case are stated are as follows: (a) the time limit of the "former Housing Construction Promotion Act" of the second half of the judgment of the court of first instance is the "former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003)" of the "former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by the Housing Act, Act No. 6916, May 29, 2003)"; and (b) it is identical to the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and (c) it

B. Determination as to the assertion of the trial

(1) The argument

The plaintiff concluded a construction contract of so-called's share of the apartment in this case with the non-party ○○ Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the "non-party ○○○ Development Co., Ltd."), and agreed to supply each member of the plaintiff's association with one apartment household, and to cover all the plaintiff's revenue such as the remaining general sales revenue excluding the apartment unit of the union members and the additional charges borne by the plaintiff's union members with the construction cost. Thus, even if it appears that the plaintiff's profit was generated in the business year 2004 due to the general sale, it is merely a processed profit calculated on the account book, and the actual profit was attributed to the non-party company, which is the contractor, and thus, the defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff's request for correction

(2) Facts of recognition

(A) Details of the construction contract

1) On July 23, 2003, the Plaintiff concluded a construction contract on the instant reconstruction apartment (the "construction contract' of this case") with the Nonparty Company, and agreed to recognize 34 square-type 18 and 41.64 square-type 18 households among the apartment units of 48 households to be constructed as the Plaintiff's shares, and sell them to the Plaintiff members and sell the remaining 12 households to the general public.

2) The Plaintiff and the non-party company agreed that the non-party company will receive additional contributions of KRW 2.124 million from the Plaintiff as to the construction cost and appropriate the sales price for the 12 household apartment units subject to general sale for the construction cost. However, even if the actual construction cost exceeds the above additional contributions and the general sales price, it will not claim against the Plaintiff.

3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.124 million to the non-party company out of KRW 2.19 billion, which the Plaintiff received from its members, and paid the remainder to the non-party company as general administration expenses, value-added taxes, etc.

(B) Market price of the reconstruction apartment of this case and the income and expenditure of the plaintiff

1) As a result of the Plaintiff’s final settlement of revenue and expenditure from July 20, 2003 to December 31, 2006, when the business was completed, the amount of KRW 5,418,720,410, which was calculated by deducting the outstanding amount from the amount of KRW 335,530,000,000 as the general sale price, KRW 2.19,240,000 as the union member contributions, KRW 10,267,80 as the refund of value-added tax, KRW 5,410 as the revenue, and KRW 103,489,90 as the construction cost, KRW 28,33,00,00 as the payment fee, KRW 32,185,95,00 as the corporate tax, etc. was appropriated as the revenue.

2) The selling price of the redevelopment apartment of this case was set at KRW 275 million in the case of 34 square meters, and KRW 323 million in the case of 41.64 square meters, and in the case of 41.64 square meters, the 36 households in the case of the apartment sold by the Plaintiff’s members are KRW 10.76 billion in the value of the apartment sold by the Plaintiff’s members ( KRW 2.75 million in the case of X 18 households + KRW 320,300 in the case of KRW 323 million in the case of the redevelopment apartment of this case).

[Ground of recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 7-1, 2, 8, 9, 12, and 13 of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 4, and 7-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

(3) Determination

The housing association under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act provides that the plaintiff's business purpose is to build land or funds from the association members and sell them to the association members to enhance their residential stability and housing standards. Since individual association members invested in their own land or housing and sell them to the association members, a reconstruction project is implemented in such a way as to reduce the construction cost to be borne by each association members by using the construction cost in addition to the apartment unit to be sold to the association members, it should be determined by comparing the total cost of the construction cost including the sales cost for the apartment unit and the apartment unit price to be acquired by the association members as well as the total cost of the construction cost for the apartment unit to be purchased by the association members, the sales price for the apartment unit and the sales price for the apartment unit to be 3.6 billion won for the apartment unit and the sales price for the apartment unit to be 1.6 billion won for the apartment unit and the sales price for the apartment unit to be 3.6 billion won for the apartment unit and the sales price for the apartment unit to be acquired by the association members. Accordingly, the above facts are as follows.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.