Whether the act of selling daily necessities and drugs to foreign employees at cost, including personnel expenses, but not limited to corporate expenses or revenue taxes, constitutes a business for profit under Article 1 of the Business Tax Act and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Sale of daily necessities and medicines necessary for meeting the reasonable demand of foreign personnel at cost not including the head office expenses or import taxes, including personnel expenses, by a company established under Article 152 (A, I, and D Loan Agreements) of the Treaty ratified on July 3, 1965, which constitutes part of the content of the said Agreement, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Technical Assistance Agreement which constitutes part of the said Agreement.

Yongnam Chemical Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Litigation Performers of the Head of Ulsan District Office

Daegu High Court Decision 72 Gu28 delivered on July 25, 1974

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

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

First, with respect to the so-called bookkeeping, failure to report, and imposition of additional tax, the original judgment is that the plaintiff company established the principal office in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, 12 (at the time of imposition) and runs a business of producing and selling fertilizers in Ulsan-si, Seoul. From July 1, 1967 to June 30, 196, the double entry bookkeeping book was kept at the principal office each business year, and the head of the tax office made a tax base return at that time, and the head of the tax office recognized that the principal office of the manufacturing place was legitimate by investigating the business trip at the principal office and the manufacturing place and imposed the principal tax on the manufacturing place. According to Article 14 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act (No. 1965 of Nov. 29, 1967), the plaintiff company did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of Article 30 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 30 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act or the records.

The issue on this point is recognized as only an independent opinion.

Next, according to the facts established by the original judgment with respect to the establishment of a restaurant business and store for foreign employees of the Plaintiff Company, the Plaintiff Company was established under the Treaty No. 152 (A.I.D. Loan Agreement) ratified on July 3, 1965 (A.D.) and established a restaurant business and store pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Technical Assistance Agreement, which forms part of the content of the said agreement, including personnel expenses, but not including the expenses of the head office or import tax, sells daily necessities and drugs necessary to meet the reasonable demand of foreign employees. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, this cannot be deemed as a business for profit-making purposes as stipulated in Article 1 of the Business Tax Act and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the lower court’s revocation of the disposition of imposition of the principal tax on this case, which is unlawful. The arguments are not with merit.

Therefore, this 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 Young-young (Presiding Justice)