Daejeon High Court 2014Nu1002 (Law No. 12, 2014)

Income accrued from business newly launched after the relocation of the headquarters shall also constitute tax base subject to reduction and exemption.

There is no ground to view that it is limited to the income subject to reduction or exemption of the tax base to have accrued from the same type of business as that operated prior to the relocation of the headquarters.

Article 81 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2014Du38965 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

AAtory Co., Ltd.

Law Firm LLC (LLC)

Seoul High Court Decision 200

o Head of the tax office

Litigation Performers o

Daejeon High Court Decision 2014Nu1002 Decided June 12, 2014

November 13, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal (the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed) are examined.

(1) The court shall make decisions to the extent of supplement in case of any kind.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal

(1) The amendment of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 7003 of Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 63-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act ("the Restriction of Special Taxation Act") provides that the head office shall be relocated to an area other than the Seoul

for a given period, the transfer margin of land and buildings shall be deducted from the tax base for the pertinent taxable year.

amount calculated by multiplying the amount (hereinafter referred to as "tax base subject to reduction or exemption") by a certain ratio:

the corporate tax amount shall be reduced or exempted: Provided, That the corporation that newly constructs and sells the house shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree

A house and land attached to a house (hereinafter referred to as "land annexed to a house") created by transferring them;

Income to be included in the tax base subject to reduction and exemption, and upon delegation, the Gu Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Article 60-2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) stipulates the land annexed to a house newly built for sale as “the land attached to the house newly built for sale within five times (10 times for the land other than the urban planning zone) on which the building is built.”

However, the Restriction of Special Taxation Act amended by Act No. 7003 on December 30, 2003 (hereinafter “Revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) (hereinafter “Revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act”).

D) The proviso of Article 63-2(1) (proviso) shall be the “corporation engaged in the construction business as prescribed by the Presidential Decree”.

In addition, one of the categories of business excluded from reduction and exemption is added, and Article 38 (2) of the Addenda is "before this Act enters into force.

corporation that satisfies the requirements for reduction and exemption under Article 63-2 and receives tax benefits.

(1) Notwithstanding the amendments, the preceding provisions shall apply to the transitional rules (hereinafter referred to as "the transitional rules of this case").

In addition, the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) newly established Article 60-2(1)5 to prescribe construction business as “construction business (including construction and sales business under Article 32 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act)” and Article 12 of the Addenda provides that “The amended provisions of Article 60-2(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 30, 2003; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act”) shall apply to Article 60-2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18176, Dec. 5, 2003). However, the Addenda

(2) The lower court determined on March 26, 2001, that the Plaintiff engaged in the housing construction and sales business, etc. was Seoul Gangnam-gu.

After recognizing the fact that the 823-30 was moved to the Yaeong-si, Yaong-dong, Yaeong-dong, Yacheon-dong, 1

The term “previous provision” referred to in the transitional provision is not only Article 63-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act prior to the amendment.

Article 60-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (including Article 60-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act prior to the amendment by delegation) is sufficiently possible and natural, and (2) under the structure that creates a single legal effect by integrating with the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act,

In the event that the amended and amended law maintains the right to benefit, the amended enforcement decree also

The basis for deeming that the principle of legislative technology has been established that a separate transitional provision should be provided.

(3) The revised Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that a house to be transferred to an area other than the Seoul Metropolitan area shall be newly built.

No benefit from tax reduction or exemption for a selling corporation shall be granted to the sales corporation: Provided, That prior to its implementation

This case intends to continue to grant the benefit of reduction or exemption already received to a corporation that was a new house sales corporation.

Since the above interpretation is also in line with the purpose of the amendment, there is a transitional provision.

In addition, even after the enforcement of the amended Restriction of Special Taxation Act, the Act prior to the amendment in accordance with the transitional provisions of this case

The calculation of the abated or exempted tax amount of a corporation relocated its head office to an area other than the Seoul Metropolitan area.

(1) The scope of "land annexed to a house" included in the tax base subject to reduction or exemption shall be

For the reason that it is reasonable to deem that Article 60-2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act should be followed:

Among each disposition, the incidental land prescribed in Article 60-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act before the amendment.

capital gains from the portion exceeding the scope of the section 2006 of the Plaintiff’s 2009

The tax base to be reduced until the business year determined to be lawful.

Furthermore, the lower court, insofar as Article 60-2(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act prior to the amendment is deleted, on appurtenant land.

With respect to the scope of land, five or ten times the settled area of the building and the larger of the total floor area of the house;

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that Article 92-2(4)4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19328, Feb. 9, 2006; Presidential Decree No. 22951, Jun. 3, 2011; hereinafter the same) that provides that “land within the limit shall be seen as land attached to a house shall be applied to the Plaintiff’s land.” The above provision sets the standard for the area of “land attached to a house” in relation to “transfer income of land attached to a house” of a newly constructed and sold corporation excluded from the “special taxation on transfer income, such as land,” pursuant to delegation under Article 55-2(4)3 of the Corporate Tax Act, which is excluded from the “special taxation on transfer income of land attached to a house.” Thus, it is inappropriate to apply the above provision to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is a difference in nature, purpose, and subject matter of regulation before the amendment, etc., more benefit than the application of Article 60-2(5) of the Special Taxation Act.

(3) The reasoning of the lower judgment is as follows: (a) the language and text of the foregoing provision, its amendment process, and relevant legal principles.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, we affirm and accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effectiveness and transitional provisions of the repealed statute.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court: (a) the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act previously amended by the Plaintiff

A house not falling under Article 60-2 (5) by applying Article 92-2 (4) 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

It is simple for calculating the scope of appurtenant land and reporting corporate tax

For the reason that it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff is merely a legal site or misunderstanding

The court determined that there was no legitimate reason to exempt the penalty tax.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower judgment is justifiable.

We affirm and accept the legal principles as to legitimate grounds for exempting from additional tax, contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal.

There is no error of misunderstanding.

C. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In each of the dispositions in this case, the penalty tax in this case shall be divided into or recorded in a tax payment notice.

The ground of appeal pointing this out to the effect that it is unlawful by failing to state the grounds for calculation of the tax amount.

The ground of appeal can not be a legitimate ground of appeal, which is asserted only in the final appeal.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The lower court: ① Article 63-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act and Article 60-2(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act;

Upon examining the language and text of the Act, the income subject to the tax base to be reduced or exempted has been operated prior to the relocation of the head office.

There is no basis to regard that it is limited to one type of business that is the same as that of one type of business.

Article 63-2 (1) 1 and (7) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 63-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

Requirements for falling under Article 60-2 (2) 2, etc. to be a relocating corporation outside the Seoul Metropolitan area and the reduction or exemption thereof.

of the tax amount, in addition to these provisions, a new time after the relocation of the head office

- - Other

income generated from a small type of business shall be excluded from income subject to the tax base subject to reduction and exemption.

(3) The purport of Article 63-2 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act before the amendment is the corporation.

Promotion of job creation and economic revitalization by encouraging the relocation of areas outside the Seoul Metropolitan area;

corporation that has relocated its headquarters to an area outside the Seoul Metropolitan area is new after relocation.

The commencement of the business and expansion of the business and additional income are contrary to the above purport.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff established the headquarters after its relocation.

It is reasonable to deem that income accrued from exporting construction raw materials is also included in the tax base subject to reduction and exemption.

on the grounds that the defendant's tax base of reduction and exemption is calculated by excluding the above income among each disposition of this case

I determined that the part was illegal.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the language and purport of the aforementioned provisions and relevant legal principles.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the previous Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 63-2(2)2(a)(b).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is assessed against all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.