Where a part of a site is leased and used as a parking lot in order to use it as a parking lot for a restaurant, the case holding that the parking lot is included in the site area which is the standard to apply the standard income ratio of high-class

Where a part of a site is leased and used as a parking lot in order to use it as a parking lot for a restaurant, the case holding that the parking lot is included in the site area which is the standard for applying the standard income ratio of high-class restaurants.

Article 120 (2) of the Income Tax Act, Article 169-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The director of the tax office.

Seoul High Court Decision 92Gu31202 delivered on June 10, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff's ○○ cafeteria operated by the o'clock evidence is a high-class restaurant with 402.4 square meters in Seocho-gu ( Address 1 omitted) land and 39.8 square meters in lots, and the restaurant building's floor area is 197.09 square meters in lots and the remaining site is used as the parking lot for the above restaurant, but the area of the parking lot is narrow compared to the size of the above restaurant's facilities. The plaintiff's ( Address 1 omitted) land and 313 square meters in lots (road 3 omitted) are located between the above 1,000 square meters in lots and the above 1,000 square meters in lots and the above 1,000 square meters in lots are separated from the above 1,000 square meters in lots, and the above 1,0000 square meters in lots and the above 1,000 square meters in lots are constructed for the convenience of its management, and the above 1,0000 or more parking lots are constructed.

As the scope and standard of application of the above income-based high-class restaurant, a business site (including parking lots) other than the building is more than twice the area of the 1st floor of the building by designating a high-class restaurant and prescribing a higher income-based rate than in the case of the general restaurant is shown to be a standard of income applicable to income earners equipped with facilities in the above size with income differences in reality. Even if a business owner has the above size of a site, it is stipulated that the application of the income-based rate as a high-class restaurant should be excluded if the current status of facilities is not a high-class restaurant. Thus, the above income-based rate provision itself is an unreasonable and unreasonable provision irrelevant to the actual amount of income, and it cannot be deemed that it goes against the principle of no taxation without law

In addition, the above income-based parking lot included in a site other than a building site in the above income-based standard rate is reasonable as it includes not only the parking lot on the building site but also the parking lot on the site other than the above site. Thus, if the plaintiff leased the site of this case to use it as a parking lot of the above restaurant and subleases it for the convenience of its management and uses it as a parking lot, the above parking lot should be considered as a parking lot included in the above income-based standard rate, and in light of the current status of the above restaurant facilities as shown in the record, it cannot be deemed that the above restaurant is not a high-class restaurant, and it cannot be deemed that it is unreasonable and reasonable to determine the plaintiff's income by applying the income-based standard rate of high-class restaurant, and high-class restaurant based on the site area of the building site in the income-based standard rate is not a high-class restaurant, and the price of food and beverage sold in the above restaurant does not constitute a high-class restaurant, and thus, it is not reasonable to exclude the above income-based restaurant from the above income-based restaurant from its business license.

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

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)