Suwon District Court 2014Guhap5695 (2015.06.04)

The acquisition of real estate for profit-making business with the profits from the disposal of the fixed assets of a school juristic person shall not be included in the scope of the use of

Since the acquisition of real estate for profit-making business by the profits from the disposal of the fixed assets of a school juristic person is stipulated not to be included in the scope of the use of the reserve fund for proper purpose business, this case is judged to be different

2015Nu48862 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○ Private Teaching Institutes

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Guhap5695 Decided June 4, 2015

February 26, 2016

March 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. On September 3, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of corporate tax of KRW 5,484,394,420 (including additional tax of KRW 624,496,839) for the business year from March 1, 2012 to February 28, 2013 against the Plaintiff.

1. 제1심 판결 이유의 인용이 판결 이유는 제1심 판결 이유 중 아래와 같은 내용을 고치거나 추가하는 외에는 제1심 판결 이유와 같으므로, 행정소송법 제8조 제2항, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 인용한다. ① 제4면 제3행의 "제①, ②, ③ 주장"을 "제 ① 내지 ⑤ 주장"으로 고친다. ② 제4면 제18행 다음에 아래 부분을 추가한다. 『④ 1994년경 시화방조제 공사로 인하여 이 사건 토지를 염전으로 사용할 수 없게 될 때부터 원고는 이를 학생들의 현장실습 및 견학용으로 사용하였다. 따라서 이 사건 토지는 법인세법 제3조 제3항 제5호, 법인세법 시행령 제2조 제2항에 규정된 '고유목적사업에 직접 사용하는 고정자산으로서 처분일 현재 3년 이상 계속하여 고유목적사업에 사용된 경우'에 해당하므로 그 처분으로 인하여 생긴 수입은 법인세 과세대상이 아니다. ⑤ 설령 고유목적사업준비금으로 이 사건 건물을 취득한 것으로 보더라도, 원고는 그 임대수입을 학교 경비에 충당하려고 이 사건 건물을 취득한 것이고, 실제로도 그 임대수입을 학교 경비에 충당하였으므로 법인세법 시행령 제56조 제5항의 고유목적사업에 사용한 것으로 보아야 한다.』 ③ 제6면 제6행의 "형홰화되는"을 "형해화되는"으로 고친다.

(4) On the 8th page 17, the following shall be added. 4) Determination as to the No.

According to the statement No. 11-1, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he operates Songsan Middle School for the purpose of middle and general education. If the land of this case was used for field training and field trips as the plaintiff's assertion, it may be deemed that he directly used the land of this case to the plaintiff's proper purpose business. However, it is not understood in light of the empirical rule as to the provision of the land of this case to middle and middle school students for middle and general education, and it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was so, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

No. 5) Judgment on No. 5

According to Article 56(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, a proper purpose business shall be determined by statutes or articles of incorporation

The purpose of its establishment is to be a business that directly performs the purpose of its establishment, and the rent income cannot be deemed to constitute it. If the business to cover expenses as alleged by the Plaintiff falls under the proper purpose business, all profit-making businesses are deemed to be the proper purpose business, and the unfair result is generated. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

(5) The following parts shall be added to the "Related Acts and subordinate statutes". (2) Article 3 (3) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Periodical Corporate Tax Act (the scope of profit-making business) means direct use of the relevant fixed assets for the proper purpose business (excluding profit-making business under paragraph (1)) prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes or the articles of incorporation for at least three consecutive years as of the date of disposal of the relevant fixed assets. In such cases, even where there are incidental profits, such as admission fees and admission fees, etc. for maintaining and managing the relevant fixed assets

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.