Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-62545 ( October 17, 2016)

Cho High Court Decision 2014west 4768 (O2. 11)

Since the council of occupants' representatives under the Housing Act is not an organization consisting of all apartment occupants, it is difficult to see that the management body and its substance are identical.

The council of occupants' representatives under the Housing Act is not an organization consisting of all occupants of apartment houses, but a non-corporate association consisting of representatives from each building elected in proportion to the number of households by apartment buildings. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the substance of a management body consisting of all sectional owners (Article 23(1)

Article 2 (Tax Liability, Article 19) of the Income Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2016-Nu-5232 ( November 15, 2016)

AAAAAA apartment council of occupants' representatives

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-62545 ( October 17, 2016)

on March 31, 2016

on 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of each global income tax on May 2, 2013 by the defendant against the plaintiff on May 2, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the list of the attached papers of the first instance judgment is changed to the list of the attached papers of this Court; and (b) the reasoning of the first instance judgment is the same as that of the part of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following in the fifth and fourth attached papers of the first instance judgment; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8

In light of the purport of the tax judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do328, Apr. 30, 2013) which held that a management body under the provisions of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the "Aggregate Buildings Act") is jointly engaged in a business, the Plaintiff asserts that the substance should be regarded as a joint business by the occupants to the same council of occupants' representatives as the management body, and impose taxes on each apartment tenant regarding the same apartment as the management body. However, as seen earlier, the council of occupants' representatives under the Housing Act is not a group of apartment owners but a group of non-corporate representatives consisting of the representatives of buildings elected in proportion to the number of households of each apartment group (see, e.g., Article 23(1) of the Aggregate Buildings Act). Unless otherwise stipulated by the regulations for the common use of Aggregate Buildings, it is difficult to see that all sectional owners shared owners bear the management costs of the common use area and other obligations and gain profits from the common use area (Article 17 of the Aggregate Buildings Act).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.