(a) In a case where a grain processing operator constructed a warehouse in a Do refining factory site with a permit for warehouse business to store dried grain in accordance with the Government grain processing contract for a certain period, and dried grain in a Do processing site for not less than two years and stored in the said warehouse, whether the said warehouse and the site for the warehouse constitute “a factory continuously operated for not less than two years” under Article 6(2)2 of the former Income Tax Act (affirmative)

(b) The case holding that where the government grain processing operator newly built a new factory and built a new factory after selling old factory buildings and sites by moving the factory, and then relocated the whole machinery installed in the old factory to a new factory building, but at that time, the government grain also reduced the quantity of the grain so that the operation of the whole new factory becomes unnecessary, and thus, the construction of power facilities for the purpose of the overall new factory is reserved, and the construction of small amount of grain was commenced by operating the machinery, such as diesel engines, etc. installed in a new factory, at the general public's request, and then the construction of new factory's facilities under Article 18 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act is "construction".

A. In a case where the Plaintiff entered into a contract for grain processing with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to store the government grain, etc., which was stored free of charge in the city, Incheon Special Metropolitan City, and Do, for a certain period of time with the permission of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries around 1973, and newly constructed a warehouse in the Do government factory site, and the above warehouse is located in the Do government factory site and stored in the above warehouse, it is reasonable to view that even if the Plaintiff constructed the above warehouse with the permission of the warehouse business, the above warehouse and its appurtenant land are included in the production equipment of the above Do factory. Thus, the above warehouse and its site constitute "factory continuously operated for more than two years" under Article 6 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act.

B. The case holding that, where the government grain processing operator purchased a new factory site after the former factory building and site were sold in order to relocate a factory, constructed a new factory and completed a completion inspection of a new factory building, and then installed the entire 2 studs installed in an old factory building, but around that time, the construction of power facilities for the purpose of the overall studs of a new factory became unnecessary due to the low quality of the government grain and the operation of the entire studs of a new factory becomes unnecessary due to the low quality of the government grain, and the construction of power facilities for the purpose of the large studs of grain was commenced, and the small amount of grain was built at the request of the general public, it constitutes "construction of new factory facilities under Article 18 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act."

A.B. Article 6 (2) 2(b) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4165 of Dec. 30, 1989)

[Judgment of the court below]

Head of the Office of Government

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu7797 delivered on July 5, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) As to ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the plaintiff constructed the above warehouse with the permission of warehouse business from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on September 27, 1973 with the permission of grain processing business under Article 16 of the Grain Management Act, and established grain processing contract with the government government with the city, Incheon Metropolitan City, and the government. Under the above contract, the government grain was stored free of charge for 10 days from the date of production report, and other by-products were stored free of charge for 20 days from the date of production report, and the plaintiff newly constructed the warehouse of this case in the Do and stored the government grain, etc. in the above warehouse in the Do, and the above warehouse is located in the factory site with the Do government's factory, the above warehouse and its appurtenant land were included in the production facilities of the above Do factory, and therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts finding that the above warehouse and its site constitute a non-use of the right of operation under Article 6 (2) 2 of the former Income Tax Act.

(2) As to the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff's construction site of the plaintiff's old factory from the head of Incheon Special Metropolitan City around February 7, 1985 is likely to be flooded due to low construction site of the plaintiff's old factory, he purchased new factory site from the old factory development corporation on March 5, 1985, and newly constructed new factory site after completion of the inspection of construction of the new factory, 28 U.S. 2 and electric motors (the diesel engine stated as diesel machine) were installed in the old factory on July 1987, 197, 5 new 190 U.S. 1 and 3 new 190 U.S. 1 and 198 U.S. 1 and 3 new 198 U.S. 1 and new 98 U.S. 3 new mal. mal. new marries factories installed in the new factory because the new marries 1 and its accessory 1 were installed in the new mar factory.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)