A. The meaning of real estate sales businessman who is subject to special surtax pursuant to Article 59-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 315, Dec. 5, 1978);

(b) Where a corporation whose business purpose is to lease real estate sells a building, whether the special consumption tax is levied (negative);

A. In case of a transfer of a building pursuant to Article 59-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1978, Dec. 5, 1978), a real estate sales businessman subject to special surtax shall be interpreted as a real estate sales businessman, in light of the provisions of Article 11(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7827, Sep. 24, 1975) and Article 1(1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7827, Sep. 24, 1975).

B. If the Plaintiff corporation whose business purpose is to rent real estate sells one building among the above buildings in order to redeem the construction cost invested by the non-party organization in the construction of three buildings, the act of selling the above building by the Plaintiff corporation cannot be deemed to have continuity and repetition, and the Plaintiff corporation cannot be deemed to be a real estate sales businessman, and thus, the special surtax shall not be imposed on the sale of the above building.

Article 59-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1987. 5, Dec. 5, 1987); Article 11(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7827, Sep. 24, 1975); Article 12(1)11 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 11980, Dec. 13, 1980);

Red Master Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu295 delivered on August 17, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to Article 59-2 and Paragraph (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1978. 5, Dec. 5, 1978), the tax base of special surtax is that the total amount of gains from the transfer of land prescribed by the Presidential Decree (including buildings in real estate sales business among real estate business; hereinafter “land, etc.”). In the case of a transfer of a building, the special surtax may be imposed only when the corporation is a real estate sales businessman. In this context, the real estate sales businessman is entitled to impose special surtax under the name of the real estate sales businessman. In light of the provisions of Article 11 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Business Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 7827, Sep. 24, 1975) and Article 1 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Value-Added Tax Act, it is reasonable to interpret that the sale or brokerage of real estate is for sale of real estate or the acquisition and sale of real estate more than once for profit-making purposes. In this case, the court below's holding that it cannot be held that the real estate sales association's.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young