Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Group-5084 ( August 30, 2017)

propriety of the disposition imposing the transfer income tax by deeming the church as one resident;

Since the plaintiff did not obtain approval from the head of the competent tax office, it does not constitute "organization deemed as a corporation" under Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax on the plaintiff as a resident

Article 13 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2017Nu70924 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

AAD Association

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 28, 2018

August 23, 2018

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 capital gains tax of KRW 76,808,060 (including additional tax) for the Plaintiff on July 5, 2016 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the dismissal or addition of some contents as follows, and thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

Parts to be removed or added.

After the 3rd 4th 4th , "the plaintiff did not apply to the director of the CCC for business registration under the former Value-Added Tax Act, and added "the plaintiff is not entitled to the identification number under the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5032 of Dec. 29, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "former Value-Added Tax Act"), Article 20 (3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14863 of Dec. 30, 1995; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act") and Article 8 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 14863 of Dec. 30,

○○ 4, 17, “Nos. 1, 10” was “B Nos. 1, 3, 10, 12 (the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1)” and “Nos. 1, 12, and 12 (the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1) were used as evidence for the magnetic disc, etc., and thus, it was not disclosed to the effect that the date and time when the information was entered, the date and time when the information was printed, and the output was printed, and the date and time when the information was printed. However, the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 was submitted as documentary evidence by the Defendant, and the Defendant’s letter information recorded in the magnetic disc, etc. under Article 120(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure is not presented as evidence, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further examination. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is asserted to the authenticity of the above written evidence, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be sufficiently recognized that evidence No. 1 cannot be established” and “each witness” as “a witness of the first instance trial.

On October 19, 2015, the following facts are as follows: "The plaintiff submitted an application for approval of legal entity on October 19, 2015, and the defendant added "O-82-OOOOOOO" to "the fact that the plaintiff notified the plaintiff of the approval of legal entity on October 23, 2015 through the notice of approval of legal entity."

○ 5 pages 5,00 up to 14,00,000.

However, Article 1(3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7838, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) and Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Income Tax Act (amended by Ordinance No. 15, Apr. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same) provide that an organization, other than a legal entity, appointed a representative or an administrator, but the method of distributing profits or distribution ratio is not determined, shall be deemed as one resident and shall be liable to pay income tax under the Income Tax Act. According to Article 20(3) of the former Value-Added Tax Act and Articles 8(2) and 53(2) and 67(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act, among those exempted from value-added tax, those who are liable to pay income tax or corporate tax shall submit a tax invoice to the government that has been issued or received even if there is no liability to pay value-added tax, and the head of the competent tax office may grant a unique number at the time of business registration.

○ 6th 5th 5th 6th 16th east as follows:

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as a religious organization, could have been granted a unique number pursuant to the former Framework Act on National Taxes, even if it did not obtain approval from the head of the competent tax office as a legal entity under the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and the Plaintiff received a unique number from the head of the CCC head on or around September 6, 1995, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff obtained approval as a legal entity under the former Framework Act on National Taxes. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

○ The Plaintiff constitutes a case where value-added tax is exempted on the supply of goods or services supplied as a religious organization that is not a juristic person (Article 12(1)16 of the former Value-Added Tax Act), but even without obtaining approval as a legal entity, the Plaintiff, a religious organization, bears the obligation to pay income tax pursuant to Article 1(3) of the former Income Tax Act. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to submit a tax invoice to the Government when it receives tax invoices from the other party to the transaction that is a business entity. Accordingly, the head of the competent tax office at the time was able to grant a unique number corresponding to the registration number

As seen earlier, the district tax offices including the defendant have given 89 "for religious organizations which are not deemed corporations" and "82 "for legal fiction corporations" on the 4, 5th place of identification number. At the time of September 6, 1995, the identification number including 89 "the above" was granted by the CCC director, and on October 23, 2015 when the plaintiff was newly notified of approval as legal fiction corporations by the defendant, the identification number including 82 "the above" was granted to the plaintiff, as alleged by the plaintiff, if it was the purpose of granting the identification number to the CCC director at the time of granting the plaintiff as legal fiction corporations, the identification number including 82 "the above" was given.

○ In addition, even without the approval of a constructive corporation, the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain convenience in the receipt and submission of tax invoices by obtaining a unique number under the former Value-Added Tax Act and subordinate statutes, and at the same time, it is possible to conduct financial transactions with the Plaintiff’s organization name in real name. As such, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the approval of a legal entity for conversion of the Plaintiff’s property into the real name according to the implementation of the Real Name Financial Transactions System is not necessarily required.

Pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the former Value-Added Tax Act, tax authorities can grant identification numbers to efficiently handle taxation data, and they do not necessarily require business registration or grant identification numbers under the Value-Added Tax Act. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff does not have applied for business registration to the director of the CCC, the director of the CCC, which is the tax authorities, can grant identification numbers ex officio.

○ Meanwhile, the former Value-Added Tax Act was amended after the Plaintiff was granted the first unique number and the representative of a religious organization, which is not a legal entity as the Plaintiff, is required to apply for the correction of the representative when the representative is changed. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been approved as a legal entity solely on the ground that the Plaintiff issued a unique number certificate to the Plaintiff on the ground of

○ 6th 18th 2th 18th 7th 7th 7th 7th 6th 200.

○ 6 pages 19 of the Value-Added Tax Act is higher than the former Value-Added Tax Act.

○ 11 of the first page "(amended by Presidential Decree No. 14739 of July 20, 1995)" is "(amended by Presidential Decree No. 14863 of December 30, 1995)."

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.