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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 6, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of corporate tax OOOO on the Plaintiff.

“A. The Plaintiff, on August 1, 2001, donated OBOO-dong OB 534-179 large scale 274m2 (hereinafter “the instant building”) and its ground (hereinafter “the instant building”). B. The Plaintiff removed the instant building on June 5, 2002, when the instant building was designated as a building under hazard due to aging on November 26, 2001. On March 31, 2008, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the OOOO.

C. The Defendant determined that the Plaintiff did not directly use the instant land for its proper purpose business for at least three consecutive years as of the date of disposal, and imposed corporate tax on the Plaintiff on March 6, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). D. The Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on May 29, 2013, but the said claim was dismissed on October 2, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10 through 12 (including provisional number), Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the Plaintiff kept the church fixtures on the instant land after the instant building was removed, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have used the instant land for religious activities, which are the proper purpose business.

2) Even if the removal of the instant building was attributable to the removal order of the Nowon-gu office, it is against the principle of trust and good faith to impose tax on the ground that the instant building is subject to the removal order, even though it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff used the instant land for religious activities only by keeping the fixtures

3) Considering the fact that the instant building was removed in accordance with the order to remove the Nowon-gu Office and the sale of the instant land for religious activities, there exist justifiable grounds for not using the instant land for religious activities, and thus, it should be deemed that the instant land was used for religious activities.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

According to Article 3 (2) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9267 of Dec. 26, 2008, hereinafter the "former Corporate Tax Act"), income generated from the disposal of fixed assets shall be included in the income of non-profit domestic corporations for each business year, but shall not be prescribed by the Presidential Decree as fixed assets directly used for proper business purposes. According to Article 2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20930 of Jul. 24, 2008, hereinafter the "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act"), the term "those determined by the Presidential Decree" under Article 3 (2) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act means that they are directly used for the proper business purposes for three or more consecutive years as of the date of disposal of fixed assets. Whether they are directly used for the proper business purposes should be objectively determined on the basis of the actual usage relation of the relevant non-profit domestic corporation's business purposes and acquisition purposes (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Du35454, May 29, 2014).

The principle of trust and good faith, the principle of protecting trust, or the principle of respect for non-taxable practices in tax and legal relations are exceptional legal principles applicable only to cases where there are special circumstances deemed that protecting taxpayers’ trust is consistent with the justice even if they sacrifice the principle of legality. Therefore, in order to apply the principle of trust and good faith or the principle of protection of trust to a tax authority’s act, the average taxpayer’s trust given by the tax authority through the public opinion list, etc. should have a reasonable and justifiable expectation (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du5940, Dec. 26, 2013).

Since there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff expressed a public opinion that "if the defendant keeps the church's fixtures on the land of this case against the plaintiff, it is deemed that he would use the land of this case as a direct use for religious activities", this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to further examine the remainder of the issue, and 3) the judgment on the third argument.

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law, barring any special circumstance, and shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds. In particular, it accords with the principle of fair taxation to strictly interpret that a provision clearly deemed a preferential provision among the requirements for reduction and exemption accords with the principle of fair taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du11372, Aug. 20, 2009).

In addition, Article 3 (2) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 2 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act do not provide that "the fixed assets not directly used for the proper purpose business shall be deemed as fixed assets directly used for the proper purpose business if there are justifiable grounds for not using them directly for the proper purpose business," and there is no evidence to prove the existence of justifiable grounds for not using the land in this case for the proper purpose business."

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.