Whether it constitutes a real estate rental business under Article 1 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced in this taxable period, and is subject to taxation; and

The act of the temple's real estate lease is not a corporation's proper purpose business, but a real estate lease business for profit under Article 1 (1) 5 of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced in this taxable period, and is subject to taxation, and the above real estate lease is based on the direction of the State according to the national policy called the promotion of tourism, and even if the revenue is appropriated as corporate revenue in accordance with the Buddhist Property Management Act and used for the purpose of the temple's proper purpose business, it is not subject to taxation, unless there are special circumstances.

J. S. S. S. J. S. J. S. J. S. S. Attorney Park Jae-soo

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 75Gu22 delivered on June 18, 1975

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

The facts duly confirmed by the court below are that the inspection of the plaintiff, which is a non-profit corporation under the jurisdiction of the Korea Non-Korean Government of the Republic of Korea. The plaintiff's inspection leased the real estate owned by the plaintiff to another person from July 1, 1972 to December 31, 1973, and there was rent revenue, but the defendant imposed the tax on the plaintiff on this taxable object.

Thus, the plaintiff's above real estate lease act is not a principal business of the plaintiff corporation under this case, but a real estate lease business for profit under Article 1 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 1 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 1 (1) 2 of the same Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which was enforced in this taxable period. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the Act on the Business of Instruments under Article 1 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act.

In addition, although crude oil, which the plaintiff's act of leasing the above real estate, is based on the direction of the State in response to the national policy of the promotion of tourism business, and the revenue is appropriated as the corporate revenue in accordance with the Buddhist Property Management Act and approved by the Ministry of Culture and Arts for the budget and settlement of accounts, and the use of the revenue is used for the protection of the Buddhist law, the edification of the believers, the protection of the Buddhist cultural properties, and the maintenance and management of the temple, barring special circumstances, the above act of leasing the real estate itself is considered as the business for the purpose of paying rent, and thus it is subject to corporate tax.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this issue.

In the following reasons, the original judgment is justified and discussed on the following grounds: (a) although it is not appropriate to express this case’s rent on the ground that the income subject to corporate tax is “income subject to corporate tax”, it is obvious that such mistake does not affect the judgment, and therefore, it is apparent that such mistake does not affect the judgment.

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

Justices Ahn Byung-hee (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)