Freeboard Fisheries Cooperatives (Attorneys Lee Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the tax office

August 25, 197

The disposition of imposition of KRW 1,190,384, which the defendant imposed on the plaintiff as of March 16, 1976 by the defendant, shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The defendant shall calculate the corporate tax amount of KRW 15,845,964, calculated by applying the tax rate under Article 22(1) of the Corporate Tax Act to the corporate income amount of KRW 42,853,353 of the plaintiff union for the business year 1976, with the corporate tax rate of KRW 15,169,192, according to the tax rate under Article 4 of the Defense Tax Act. The defendant has already voluntarily paid KRW 2,17,205, which is calculated by applying the corporate tax rate under Article 22(4) of the Corporate Tax Act to the corporate tax amount of KRW 91,987,397 and the additional tax amount of KRW 198,397,384,384, March 16, 1976, there is no dispute between the parties concerned.

The plaintiff, as the plaintiff association is a nonprofit corporation, the corporate tax amount, which is its tax base, should be calculated by applying the tax rate under Article 22 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant calculated the corporate tax amount by applying the tax rate under Article 22 (1) of the same Act and additionally imposed the defense tax on this tax base, the defendant asserted that the defendant, as the plaintiff association, is a profit-making corporation, and the plaintiff association, as it is a profit-making corporation, it is legitimate to impose the defense tax by applying the tax rate under Article 22 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act in calculating

Therefore, with respect to whether the Plaintiff Union constitutes a non-profit domestic corporation under Article 22 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act, there is no dispute between the parties. According to Article 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, a non-profit domestic corporation is a domestic corporation established under Article 32 of the Civil Act or Article 10 of the Private School Act, and a corporation established under other special Acts, which has the purpose of establishing a corporation similar to a corporation under Article 32 of the Civil Act. According to Article 1 of the Fisheries Cooperatives Act, the purpose of this Act is to promote the cooperative organization of fishermen and fishery manufacturers, thereby promoting the balanced development of the national economy by promoting the improvement of economic, social status and the production power of fisheries. According to Article 6 (2) (e) of the same Act, fisheries cooperatives shall not be engaged in any business that focuses on profit-making, speculation, or the interest of only the members of a non-profit domestic corporation under Article 32 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, in imposing the defense tax on the plaintiff union, the corporate tax amount calculated by applying the tax rate under Article 22 (4) of the Corporate Tax Act should be the defense tax base, but the defendant's corporate tax amount calculated by applying the tax rate under Article 22 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act to the profit-making corporation of the plaintiff union as the defense tax base is illegal.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation based on the premise that the disposition of this case is illegal is reasonable, and therefore, it is accepted, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

September 8, 197

Judge Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)