(영문) 서울고등법원 2016. 05. 27. 선고 2015누60855 판결

(1) The land of this case is not directly related to the Plaintiff’s business, and it is difficult to deem that the land of this case is a land directly used for the Plaintiff’s business, since it is difficult to view that it is not directly related to the Plaintiff’s business, and it is difficult to view that it is a land directly used for the Plaintiff’s business.

Cases

2015Nu608555 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

Plaintiff, Appellant

○○ Co., Ltd.

Defendant, appellant and appellant

Head of △ District Office

Judgment of the first instance court

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap50726 decided September 4, 2015

Conclusion of Pleadings

May 13, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

May 27, 2016

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The part of the Defendant’s corporate tax of 0,000,000,000,0000 won out of the corporate tax of 2006 year to the Plaintiff on November 7, 2011, which exceeds 0,000,000,000 won among the corporate tax of 0,000,000,000,0000,000 won for the business year of 207, and the corporate tax of 2008 year of 200,000,000,000 won out of the corporate tax of 200,000,000,000,000 for the business year of 209 shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of the following matters, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(1) Of the tables 15 to 2, the "related to the land of this case" in paragraph 1 shall be deemed as "related to excessive expenses, etc. for executive officers, benefits, excessive payments, etc."

(2) Class 4 "Evidence 2, 5, 6, and 9 of the Act" shall be applied to "Evidence 2, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Act".

③ On the 4th page 19, “The 000 corporation, therefore, used the instant land as a bonded storage facility for temporarily storing bonded goods, not as a bonded storage facility for temporarily storing bonded goods, but only as a land for storing public containers.”

(4) On the fourth side, the following shall be added:

Article 26 (2) 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the plaintiff shall be deemed to be a "business of a corporation" under Article 49 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act as of the end of each business year. The plaintiff asserts that the real estate rental of this case was used directly for the plaintiff's business since the real estate rental business was conducted from 2006 to 2009, the taxable business year of this case.

However, even if the real estate rental business is included in the purpose business of the plaintiff on the corporate register from 2006 to 2009, Article 26 (5) 17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "real estate which is not directly used for the business due to the suspension, closure, or transfer of the whole or part of the business, and for which five years have not elapsed since the date of such suspension, closure, or transfer of the business, shall be the real estate related to the business, and the real estate shall be treated as the real estate which is not related to the business, and if the grace period of five years from the date of such suspension, closure, or transfer has expired due to the opposite interpretation, the real estate shall be treated as the real estate which is not related to the business, and the land of this case is also used as a bonded device, and is also leased as the land in custody of containers on January 31, 199 after the business closure, closure, or transfer of the business, it shall be treated as the real estate which is not related to the business operation of the plaintiff.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.