1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of some contents as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

The following shall be replaced from the 4th to the 11th eth eth 7th eth eth eth eth.

【2) Not so.

Even if the Plaintiff among the instant land, it appears that it was 436,830 square meters “473,060 square meters”, which was actually used as a site for a stock farm around 2001, when the Plaintiff closes its business.

The portion corresponding thereto is the real estate related to the rental business, so the corresponding property tax, comprehensive real estate tax, and interest for arrears should be included in the corporation's deductible expenses. The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of the above portion of the disposition of this case should be revoked in preliminary. However, the plaintiff's legitimate corporate tax cannot be calculated because objective data necessary for calculating this cannot be submitted. Thus, the whole disposition of this case should be revoked.

Article 49(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “The real estate which is not directly used for the business of a corporation constitutes an asset irrelevant to the business, but is excluded from real estate having any inevitable reason prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance.” Article 26(5)17 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “The real estate which has any inevitable reason prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance is not used directly for the business due to the suspension, closure or transfer of all or part of the business, and for which five years have not passed since the date of such suspension, closure or transfer.”

The plaintiff discontinued his livestock industry in around 2001, and the land of this case is directly used for business as the plaintiff closes his livestock industry around 2001.