Whether all land within the scope that must be mandatorily secured to obtain permission from an administrative agency regarding a corporation’s business purpose is real estate for business purpose (affirmative)

In order for an administrative agency to obtain permission, etc. from a corporation, the land within the scope that the corporation does not have to possess to carry out its purpose business if it satisfies the conditions prescribed by the law or the standards for permission, etc. Thus, the corporation's ownership of the land must always be held in order to carry out its purpose business. Thus, Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 190) and Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 1990), "real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation," or Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4664 of Dec. 31, 193) and Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 131, 1990) cannot be deemed to have directly related to the real estate business. 193 of the same Act.

Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 43-2 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 43-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 18 (3) 2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of Feb. 27, 1993)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Posd Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeon Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu11353 delivered on February 16, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In order to obtain permission from an administrative agency for the purpose business, land within the scope that a corporation does not have to possess the conditions prescribed by the law or the standards for permission, etc., if the corporation does not have to possess the land within the scope that it does not have to carry out the purpose business. Thus, the corporation's ownership of such land cannot be deemed to have a "real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation" under Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 190) and Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 1990) or "real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation" under Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4664 of Dec. 31, 193) and Article 18-2 (2) 9-19 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 193 of the same Act).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff applied for the designation of a site under Article 6 of the former Local Industry Act (amended by Act No. 4216, Jan. 13, 1990) to the Gyeongbuk-do Governor, the management agency of the Corporation, in order to construct a factory in the 2nd industrial complex of Sipo-si, Sipo-si, Sipo-si, for the designation of a site and occupancy contract under the condition that he purchase the land of this case, which is a shielding green belt to prevent the external proliferation of factory development site and high-pollution materials, within one month from the Do Governor around July 29, 198, and accordingly, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court below that the land of this case does not constitute a land for non-business use, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, and it is not justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the land of this case owned by the plaintiff can not be deemed non-business real estate under the above Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as land within the extent that the plaintiff did not mandatorily secure as prescribed by the standards for permission, etc. to obtain permission from administrative agencies, and therefore, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 18 (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the whole land does not constitute non-business real estate. In so doing, the judgment of the court below shall be deemed to include the purport of rejecting the defendant's assertion that the land of this case constitutes non-business real estate under the provisions of Article 18 (3) 4 and 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. Thus, there is no error of law such as omission of judgment or incomplete deliberation as claimed in the grounds for appeal. Further, the court below did not err by misapprehending the judgment of the court below as to whether the land of this case falls under the requirements of Article 18 (4) 14 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act for non-business real estate.

In addition, in addition to the land of this case, the ground of appeal that the portion exceeding the standard area of the site among the land of 1876 land in Posi-dong, Posi-dong 1876 constitutes non-business real estate shall not be a legitimate ground of appeal, since it is a new argument that does not have

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of 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 Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)