Whether corporate tax, etc. is exempted in cases where a factory has not been operated continuously for two or more years at the time of land transfer and it has been actually suspended.

If it is recognized that the plaintiff did not operate a factory for more than two consecutive years at the time of the transfer of the land of this case and actually suspended the business, the transfer of the plaintiff's factory does not constitute a case where the transfer of the factory is exempted from corporate tax

Article 4-15(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Act before December 31, 1981), Article 59-3(1)7 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Act before December 21, 1982)

Bono Co., Ltd

Director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu54 delivered on August 25, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined together.

According to Article 4-15 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 3481, Dec. 31, 1981) and Article 4-15 (1) of the same Act, with respect to income accruing from the transfer of factory site and building in a large city as determined by the Presidential Decree and compensation for transfer from the State or a local government to a factory in order to relocate the factory to a provincial area shall be exempted from corporate tax only if the value of the factory is transferred to a factory above the previous factory price. According to Article 59-3 (1) 7 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 3577, Dec. 21, 1982) and Article 59-3 (1) 7 of the same Act, special surtax shall not be imposed on income accruing from the transfer of land, etc. within the scope prescribed by the Presidential Decree for the purpose of transferring a factory operated for more than two consecutive years under the conditions as determined by the Presidential Decree. The above fact-finding is justified and justified in the court below's reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)