B. The purport of Article 18 (3) 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1844 of Feb. 28, 1991)

(c) Where a corporation concurrently operates a golf course business and other business, the standards for determining whether to conduct such business;

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which judged that a golf course business and a natural farm business together are the main business of a corporation on the grounds that there was an error in interpreting and applying the main business;

B. The purport of Article 18(3)8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1844 of Feb. 28, 1991) provides that real estate for a golf course or a golf practice range which is not a main business of a corporation is to prevent unreasonable corporate expansion through outside capital of a company and to manage corporate funds with productive funds, not non-productive funds such as golf courses or golf practice ranges, thereby inducing the improvement of corporate financial structure.

(c) Where a corporation concurrently operates a golf course business with another business, the criteria to determine whether the same business is a separate business should be determined as an independent business, and the criteria to determine whether the same business is a separate business should be determined as an independent business, and otherwise, it should not be determined whether the main business is the basis of the decision, which is either the business concept under other laws and regulations or based on the individual reasons of the company, other than the concept under tax

(d) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which judged that a golf course business and a natural farm business together are the main business of a corporation on the ground that there was an error in interpreting and applying the main business

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff's loan interest during the business year 1987, which included 139,217,510 won in the amount of real estate maintenance expenses (property tax) in the amount of 806,346,838 won as stated in the judgment of the court below, among the plaintiff's loan interest, the above taxation disposition was made pursuant to Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18 (3) 8 and (5) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1780 of March 6, 1989; hereinafter the same), and on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, it did not conflict between the parties, and on the ground that the above golf course business was conducted in whole with the natural farm business of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's main business. In addition, in the above business year, it did not constitute real estate for non-business use.

However, Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 43-2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 18(3)8 and Article 18(5)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act only regulates the exclusion of losses from the interest paid on borrowings. It does not regulate the expenses, maintenance expenses, repair expenses, and losses related to the acquisition and management of assets not related to the business of the corporation, and it does not regulate the exclusion of losses from the calculation of losses. Article 16 subparag. 7 of the same Act, Article 30 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act separately stipulate the scope of "property not related to the business" under Article 30 subparag. 1 of the same Enforcement Decree at the time of the occurrence of the taxation requirement of the same case, it is evident that Article 18(3)8 of the same Enforcement Decree was not related to the business of the above Article 30 subparag. 18 of the same Enforcement Decree (Article 18(3) of the same Enforcement Rule).

In addition, examining the evidentiary materials of the taxation disposition of this case bound in the record (see, e.g., 94 pages, 155 of the records), it is also clear that the maintenance expenses of the golf course above is excluded from the amount of loss pursuant to Article 16 subparag. 7 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

As to the existence and content of the above taxation disposition, the court shall not be bound by the confession of the parties, so the court below should have separately examined whether the same expenses are assets not related to the business under Article 16 subparag. 7 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

The court below's decision that did not reach this point is erroneous in failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations by misunderstanding the application of statutes to non-inclusion of the above maintenance expenses, and the part of the court below's judgment which corresponds to this cannot be maintained first in this respect.

2. Next, we examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Litigation Performers.

Article 18 (3) 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that real estate for a golf course or a golf practice course shall be one of non-productive real estate under Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. However, it is understood that the real estate owned by a juristic person which operates a golf course or a golf practice course as its main business and whose annual income is not less than 7/100 of the real estate price. The purpose of the provision of real estate for a golf course or a golf practice course as mentioned above is to prevent unreasonable corporate expansion by outside capital and to induce corporate financial restructuring by allowing a juristic person to operate corporate funds with non-productive funds other than a golf course or a golf practice course.

In light of the above legislative intent, in addition to the above legislative intent, in cases where a corporation that runs a golf course or a golf practice course as its main business concurrently runs another business, the criteria for determining whether to authorize the same business should be determined as an independent business in determining whether to operate the same business in the above main business, and the criteria for determining whether to authorize a separate business should be determined as an independent business, and otherwise, it shall not be determined whether to operate the golf course or the golf practice course as defined in the above Article on the basis of the business concept under other laws and regulations or the individual reasons of the company, other than the concept under the tax law.

As stated in its holding, the court below determined that the reasoning of the plaintiff's business is classified as tourist-use facility business under the Tourism Promotion Act, and belongs to the attitude of business registration, and that the plaintiff is also the plaintiff's main business on other grounds such as the acquisition date of the real estate of this case and the acquisition date, business management status and profitability of the real estate of this case, and the modification process under the above Enforcement Rule, etc., and the above-mentioned golf course business and the natural farmer's business are also the plaintiff's main business. It is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation and application of main business under Article 18 (3) 8 and Article 18 (5) 2

There is reason to point this out.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)