Suwon District Court 2010Guhap17688 ( October 12, 2011)

Cho High Court Decision 2009J0319 (No. 28, 2010)

Land for non-business use is not the land that is not defined as excluding land for non-business use, but transferred without directly using it for business

Since the land in this case was acquired on April 13, 2006 and transferred without directly using it for the corporation's business during the grace period, it does not fall under the land that is excluded from the non-business land.

2011Nu39822 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

XX Stock Company

QQ세무서장

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Guhap17688 Decided October 12, 2011

April 25, 2012

May 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 on the plaintiff on December 1, 2008 and the disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 000 on the plaintiff on December 1, 2007 shall be revoked in excess of KRW 00.

1. The part citing the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, with the exception of the following: (a) the developments leading up to the instant disposition; (b) whether the instant disposition is legitimate; (c) the Plaintiff’s assertion, relevant statutes; and (c) the facts of recognition (from the second fifth to the sixth first day) are as follows. The relevant part shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act; and (c) the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O. The plaintiff's assertion (from the third fifth to the fourteenth day) is as follows:

1) In order to conduct an urban planning facility development project (cargo facility: cargo terminal), the Plaintiff purchased shares in the instant land and was designated as a project implementer and made efforts to conduct a development project, such as requesting the Korea Asset Management Corporation to purchase State-owned shares among the instant land. Although the Plaintiff failed to commence the construction due to the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain authorization on the implementation plan, the instant land is not the land that the Plaintiff transferred without direct use for its business, and the land is not the non-business land provided for in Article 5-2(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the “former Corporate Tax Act”). The instant disposition in which the Plaintiff applied the corporate tax rate of 30% as non-business land.

2) 설령 이 사건 토지가 원고 업무에 직접 사용하지 아니하고 양도한 토지, 구 법인세법 제55조의2 제2항에 규정한 비사업용 토지라고 하더라도 다음과 같은 사정에 비추어 구 법인세법 시행령(2008. 2. 29. 대통령령 제20720호로 개정되기 전 것, 이하 '구 시행령'이라 한다) 제49조 제1항 제1호, 제92조의11 제l항 제3호에 각 규정한 '부득이한 사유'에 해당되는 토지이다. 즉 QQ시장은 원고에게 도시계획시설 사업시행자 지정을 통보하면서 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분을 매수한 후에 실시계획인가 신청을 하라는 조건을 부과하였고, 한국자산관리공사는 실시계획인가를 받은 후에 매수를 신청 하라는 이유로 매수신청을 반려하였다. 양쪽 기관이 상반된 견해로 대립하는 바람에 실시계획인가를 받지 못하여 본격적인 사업시행을 할 수 없었다. 원고는 구 법인세법 시행령 제49조 제1항 제1호, 제92조의11 제1항 제3호에 규정한 '부득이한 사유'로 이 사건 토지를 업무용으로 사용하지 못하였으므로 이 사건 토지를 업무와 직접 관련이 없는 부동산이나 비사업용 토지로 보아서는 아니된다. 피고가 이 사건 토지를 업무와 직접 관련이 없는 부동산 및 비사업용 토지로 보아 법인세를 부과한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

I change from 5th to 4th as follows:

4. Land, other than farmland, forest land and site for stock farm, excluding the following:

(a) Land on which the property tax is not levied or exempted under the provisions of the Local Tax Act or related Acts;

(b) The land subject to the separate aggregate of the property tax or the separate taxation under Article 182 (1) 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act;

(c) Land that is prescribed by the Presidential Decree as being directly related to the business of a corporation in consideration of whether the land utilization conditions and related Acts are fulfilled and its revenue amount, etc.;

O The following shall be added to the 11th below:

(3) In applying the provisions of Article 49(1)1 of the Decree, the real estate concerned shall be considered to have been used directly for business in any of the following cases:

1. Where the construction has started to be used for business after acquiring land (the date on which the commencement date is unclear shall be the date on which a report on commencement of construction is submitted): Provided, That where the construction has been suspended without any natural disaster, civil petition, or any other justifiable reason, it shall be deemed that it has not

O's 13th "Goods Distribution Promotion Act" is regarded as the former Goods Distribution Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 8617 of August 3, 2007).

2. A new part.

D. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff transferred the instant land without directly using it for business purposes

According to Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act, an amount prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as expenses incurred in the acquisition and management of assets deemed not directly related to the corporation's business among expenses paid by a domestic corporation for each business year, shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year. According to Article 28 (1) 4 (a) of the same Act, among interest on loans paid by a domestic corporation that acquires or owns assets falling under subparagraph 1 of Article 27 of the same Act during each business year, the amount calculated as prescribed by Presidential Decree shall not be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for each business year. According to Article 49 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree, the term "property prescribed by Presidential Decree" under Article 27 (1) 1 (b) of the former Corporate Tax Act is a real estate that is transferred without directly using the corporation's business during the grace period prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy. According to Article 26 (1) 1 (b) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (hereinafter "former Enforcement Rule").

From April 17, 2001, the Plaintiff entered an engineering work business, building work business, etc. into a corporate register as a target project implementer, and was designated as a project implementer of the instant project. To begin the instant land, the Plaintiff is required to obtain authorization of implementation plan pursuant to Article 88(2) of the former National Land Planning and Utilization Act (amended by Act No. 8250, Jan. 19, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former National Land Planning Act”) or authorization of implementation plan pursuant to Article 28 of the former Goods Distribution Promotion Act (amended by the Framework Act on Logistics Policy (amended by Act No. 8617, Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the “former Goods Distribution Promotion Act”). The Plaintiff’s endeavoring to obtain authorization only after being designated as a project implementer and without obtaining authorization of implementation plan or execution plan. The Plaintiff is not directly used for its business. The Plaintiff acquired the instant land during the grace period and transferred it without directly using it for its business.

2) Whether it constitutes land for non-business use under Article 55-2 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act

Article 55-2 (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that land for non-business purposes falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and subparagraph 4 of Article 5-2 of the same Act provides that property tax shall not be imposed or exempted pursuant to the Local Tax Act or related Acts among land outside the farmland, forest land, stock farm land, etc., and Article 106 (1) 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act excluding land (b) which is subject to separate aggregate taxation or separate taxation of property tax pursuant to Article 106 (1) 2 and 3 of the Local Tax Act, land prescribed by Presidential Decree as being directly related to the corporation's business (c) (not prescribed by Presidential Decree for Article 55-2 (2) 4 (c) of the former Corporate Tax Act). Since the land in this case does not constitute land for non-business purposes, the land category of which is a site for which property tax is non-taxable or exempted, or land subject to separate aggregate taxation or separate taxation of property tax, it does not constitute land for non-business purposes.

3) Whether it falls under an unavoidable reason

According to Article 49 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Decree, real estate which has unavoidable reasons prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, such as real estate, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by the laws and regulations, shall be excluded from the "property prescribed by the Presidential Decree" under Article 27 (1) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act. Article 26 (5) of the former Enforcement Rule of the former Enforcement Rule provides that "real estate which has unavoidable reasons prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" shall be excluded from the "property," and Article 26 (5) of the former Enforcement Rule provides that real estate shall be prohibited or restricted from use by the laws and regulations after the acquisition of real estate, and any other real estate shall not be constructed due to the restriction of construction permission by the corporation which applied for authorization, permission, license, etc. related to the relevant business pursuant to the provisions of Article 12 (1) 2 of the Building Act and administrative guidance for the adjustment of supply and demand of construction materials after the expiration of the grace period.

According to Article 92-11 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Decree, land falling under "inevitable reason prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy" shall not be deemed land for non-business use pursuant to Article 55-2 (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act, and Article 55-2 (1) 3 of the former Enforcement Rule shall not apply to land falling under "inevitable reason". Article 46-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule provides that land shall not be deemed land for non-business use pursuant to Article 55-2 (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Article 46-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Rule provides that a person who has applied for authorization, permission, license, etc. related to the relevant business is unable to construct due to the restriction of the building permit pursuant to Article 12 of the Building Act and administrative guidance after acquiring the relevant land (the period during which the building permit is restricted), and subparagraph 13 provides the land that is not used for business due to justifiable reasons, such as the alteration of urban planning after acquiring the relevant land. The remaining subparagraph

In full view of the above provisions, the acquisition of land shall not be deemed as real estate or non-business land which is not directly related to the business, in cases where the use of land is prohibited or restricted by Acts and subordinate statutes or it is inevitably impossible to use land due to justifiable reasons corresponding to the same degree as the alteration of urban planning after acquiring the land. It is an inevitable standard for determining whether real estate or non-business land is a real estate or non-business land not directly related to the business of a corporation, and it means the internal reasons why a corporation is forced to suspend its business without carrying out its business due to unavoidable reasons, as well as the external reasons why it is impossible for it to proceed with its normal efforts even if it performed its normal efforts. Therefore, whether there exists any such justifiable reason shall be determined individually according to specific matters by taking into account the legal, factual reasons and degree of disability, whether

QQ시장은 원고에게 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분을 매수한 후에 실시계획인가 신청서를 제출하라는 조건을 부과하고 한국자산관리공사는 실시계획인가 후에 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분 매수신청을 하라고 하였다. 그러나 아래에서 보는 사정에 비추어 볼 때 QQ시장과 한국자산관리공사 견해 대립에 의하여 원고가 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분을 취득하지 못한 사정이 법인세 관련 규정에서 정하는 토지를 취득한 후 법령에 의하여 사용이 금지 또는 제한되거나 도시계획 변경과 같은 정도에 준하는 부득이한 사유에 해당한다고 보기 어렵다. 다른 부득이한 사유가 있다고 보이지도 아니한다.

① 이 사건 토지 전 소유자인 김AA도 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분을 매수할 것을 조건으로 사업시행자로 지정되었는데 이를 매수하지 못하였고 원고는 이러한 사정을 알고서 이 사건 토지 지분을 취득하였다. 이 사건 사업을 하기 위해서는 사업시행자 지정 당시 정한 기한 내에 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분을 매수하여야 사업이 가능하다는 점을 충분히 예상할 수 있었다(당심 증인 정BB 증언). ② 구 화물유통촉진법 제28조의5에 의하면 화물터미널 건설부지 안에 있는 국가 또는 지방자치단체 소유 재산은 국유재산법 또는 지방재정법 규정에도 불구하고 화물터미널사업자에게 수의계약으로 매각할 수 있으므로 원고로서는 실시계획인가 신청 전에라도 위 규정을 근거로 한국자산관리공사에게 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분 매각을 적극적으로 설득할 수 있었는데도 한국자산관리공사가 한 회신 이후 이에 대한 노력을 충분히 기울였다고 볼 자료가 없다. ③ 사업시행자 지정 당시 원고가 소유한 이 사건 토지 지분은 70,037.6분의 33,272.5 지분이어서 과반수에도 미치지 못하므로 QQ시장으로서는 원고가 나머지 지분을 빠른 시일 내에 취득하여야 이 사건 사업이 확실하게 진행될 수 있다고 판단하여 그와 같은 조건을 부과하였다고 보이고 원고는 사업시행자 지정 당시 위와 같은 조건에 대하여 아무런 이의를 하지 않았다. ④ QQ시장은 기반시설 설치에 필요한 용지 확보를 위하여 필요하다고 인정되는 경우 이행보증금을 예치하게 할 수 있는 구 국토 계획법 제89조 제1항에 따라 원고에게 이행보증금 예치를 조건으로 실시계획을 인가할 수도 있었으므로 원고가 이러한 요청을 하는 등 노력을 하였어야 한다. ⑤ 원고는 자본금 000원에 불과한 회사로 이 사건 토지 지분 매수대금 대부분을 금융기관으로부터 대출받아 이자 부담 등 자금 압박에 시달리고 있었고 이 사건 토지 중 국유 지분 매수대금 역시 대출을 통하여 조달할 수밖에 없었다. ⑥ 원고는 이 사건 토지를 매수한 지 1년 6월 만에 매도하여 약 000원 상당 양도차익을 얻었다. 타인 자본에 의존 하여 업무와 직접 관련이 없는 토지, 업무에 직접 사용하지 아니하고 양도하는 토지를 취득하여 재산증식 수단으로 이용하는 법인에 대하여 부동산 관련 지급이자를 손금에 불산입하고 중과세를 적용하는 것이 위 법인세법 규정 입법 취지이다.

3. Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.