[부당이익금반환][집23(3)민133,공1976.2.15.(530) 8889]
Whether the act of the Korea Public Relations Association, which is an incorporated association that receives fees on behalf of a government agency, constitutes a business of good offices that receive remuneration under Article 1(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 23(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act
The Korean Public Relations Association, which is an incorporated association, shall act as an agent for the head of a literature division on the basis of the directives of the Prime Minister, and even if the fee received here is used for the proper purpose of the above corporation under the approval of the Minister, the act of receiving the fee shall be limited to the act of acting as an intermediary (other than the acts prescribed in Article 1(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 23(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act at the request of another person (Article 1(1)6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act).
Attorney Go Jae-ho, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
The legal representative of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea shall be the Minister of Justice
Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1113 delivered on September 27, 1974
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The judgment of the court below is a non-profit domestic law established for the purpose of contributing to enhancing the international status of the Republic of Korea by publicizing the cultural arts and industrial development of the Republic of Korea and promoting international friendship activities. (1) In order to achieve the above purpose, the plaintiff corporation is entitled to: (2) exchange of public relations publications and film production (3) exchange of international culture and arts abroad; (5) exchange of famous persons and journalists; and (6) conduct the above projects; and (1) the expenses required for carrying out the above projects shall be appropriated as membership fees, support money, gross income, other income; and (1) the expenses required for carrying out the above projects shall be appropriated to the members’ membership fees, support money, business, and other income; (2) after the incorporation of the plaintiff corporation, the head of the culture bulletin division pursuant to the direction of the Prime Minister on the enforcement of Government Advertising No. 102, March 10, 1973; and (2) one copy of the advertising control affairs of the government agency and the government-invested enterprises shall be entrusted to the plaintiff corporation to carry out the above business plan after deducting the advertising fees from each advertising fund for the above.
2. According to Article 1(1) of the Business Tax Act, which was enforced in the taxable period of this case, a person operating a specified business in Korea shall be liable to pay the business tax under this Act, and the definition and scope of such business shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree, and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act provides that a person operating a business continuously engages in the same kind of conduct for profit-making purposes refers to the continuous operation of the same kind of conduct for profit-making purposes (see Article 1 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act).
Therefore, even if the plaintiff corporation uses the fees for the proper purpose business of the plaintiff corporation under the approval of the Prime Minister, it shall be reasonable to view that the act of receiving the fees constitutes the act of acting as an intermediary, intermediary, intermediary, sales, or agent (other than acts prescribed in Article 1 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 23 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (other than acts prescribed in Article 7 through 10) at the request of another person under Article 1 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 23 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
Therefore, there is an error of law in misunderstanding the legal principles as to business rent, so long as it cannot be viewed as a business with the premise that the act of the plaintiff, who received fees by a government agency, etc. on behalf of the government agency, is aimed at achieving the proper purpose of the non-profit corporation, and it is not subject to taxation, and it is obvious that the illegality affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)