Cho High-2015-west-544 (23 August 2016)

Whether real estate for residing overseas ship building is exempt from comprehensive real estate holding tax

The instant disposition that deemed that the real estate used to reside in a foreign vessel is not a real estate used directly for the purpose business of the Plaintiff, which is a religious organization, but is not subject to property exemption under the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act

Article 50 (2) of the Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act

2016Guhap76015 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Comprehensive Real Estate Tax, etc.

A Incorporated Foundation A

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

May 12, 2017

June 2, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On August 10, 2015, the Defendant revoked each imposition of comprehensive real estate tax of 96,256,350 won for year 201, special rural development tax of 19,251,270 won for special rural development tax of 2012, comprehensive real estate tax of 22,09,090 won for special rural development tax of 22,09,090 won for special rural development tax of 2012, comprehensive real estate tax of 2013, comprehensive rural development tax of 182,49,540 won for year 201, and special rural development tax of 36,49,90 won for special rural development tax of 201 for the Plaintiff

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The purpose of the Plaintiff is to own and manage land, buildings, and equipment necessary for A’s domestic and overseas business and supply assets necessary for its management.

B. The Plaintiff uses each of the above buildings and its site as the foreign vessel and its family's company houses or accommodation for the foreign vessel and its family members. The Plaintiff uses each of the above buildings and its site as the foreign vessel and its site on the ground of the Seoul OOOOO's ground.

C. The Plaintiff presented to the Defendant the opinion that each of the instant real estate is directly used for the Plaintiff’s objective business, which is a religious organization, pursuant to relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 13637, Dec. 29, 2015; hereinafter the same), but the Defendant: (a) included each of the instant real estate in taxation subject to taxation; and (b) on August 10, 2015, imposed the Plaintiff a comprehensive real estate tax of 96,256,350, a special rural development tax of 19,251,270, a comprehensive real estate tax of 2012, a comprehensive real estate tax of 110,496,46,460, a special rural development tax of 22,09,090, a comprehensive real estate tax of 182,49,540, a special rural development tax of 36,49,900 won (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 23, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although each of the instant real estate is a real estate used directly for the Plaintiff’s objective business, which is a religious organization, and is included in the subject of tax exemption, such as property tax, pursuant to the relevant statutes, such as the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act, the instant disposition that included each

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In full view of Article 6(1) of the Comprehensive Real Estate Tax Act and Article 50(2) of the former Restriction of Special Local Taxation Act and Articles 3 subparag. 6 and 5(1)8 of the Special Act on Special Rural Development, real estate tax and special rural development tax shall be exempted for real estate used directly by organizations for religious purposes, etc. for the relevant business. Here, “whether a real estate is directly used for the relevant business” should be objectively determined by considering the purpose of the relevant organization’s business and the purpose of its acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1171, Oct. 27, 201). If a non-profit entrepreneur provided a member with a lodging, if the partner stays in the lodging because of the non-profit entrepreneur’s non-profit business’s critical tracking status that is difficult to perform his/her duties, it can be deemed that the lodging is directly used for the purpose of business, but if the provision of the lodging is not directly related to the convenience of members or the performance of his/her duties.

In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and the whole arguments as to this case, the plaintiff acquired each real estate of this case for the purpose of providing company houses or offices, etc. to the ship teachers dispatched by Eul to Korea for Jeondo business, etc., as an incorporated foundation with the purpose of owning and managing land, buildings and equipment necessary for the business of domestic transfer, overseas navigational education, etc., and the supply of assets necessary for its management. However, since Gap did not send the ship teachers to Korea from June 2010 to Korea, the plaintiff was dispatched to Korea from June 2010, and then returned to Korea temporarily or after sending a ceremony to go to go to the missionary work, it can be recognized that the foreign ship teachers belonging to B and their families residing in Korea, who returned to Korea, have them use the real estate of this case as company houses or lodging houses while residing in Korea.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the provision of each real estate of this case is for the convenience of the above overseas shipping teachers, and it is not significantly related to the plaintiff's duties, rather than for the provision of each real estate of this case to promote convenience for the above overseas shipping teachers. Thus, it is difficult to see that each real estate of this case is directly used for the plaintiff's purpose of business.

① The Plaintiff’s purpose of business is to possess and manage land, buildings, and equipment necessary for the business of domestic transfer, overseas navigation, religious education, etc., and the Plaintiff’s purpose of business is to use each of the instant real estate as a company house or a lodging room, and as the object of business is overseas teachers belonging to B, such activities cannot be deemed to be directly included in the Plaintiff’s purpose of business under the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation, and may not be necessarily necessary

② Overseas ship teachers, who resided in the real estate of this case, use each of the real estate of this case for residential purposes while taking a rest in the Republic of Korea after the completion of overseas mission activity. As such, it is difficult to see that they engaged in missionary work, movement, religious education, etc. while they reside in each of the real estate of this case. Moreover, the residence and stay in each of the real estate of this case cannot be deemed as concurrently taking the character of performing their duties.

In the end, the disposition of this case in the judgment above is legitimate, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.