[1] Whether a lessor is included in a "domestic corporation that operates a business with factory facilities in a large city" subject to exemption from capital gains tax and special surtax under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (negative), and in a case where there are parts leased to another among the transferred factory buildings, the method of calculating the standard area of factory sites, which

[2] Whether a notice of tax payment is appropriate for a taxpayer’s notice of tax payment, in which matters such as the basis for calculating the amount of tax were omitted or the statement of calculating the tax base and amount are not attached (negative), and whether such defect is cured in a case where the taxpayer knows the basis for calculation or actually knows it (negative)

[3] In a case where a corporation imposes and notifies corporate tax and special surtax on a corporation’s real estate transfer income, whether the tax notice should separately state the tax items, tax base, and tax rate (affirmative)

[1] The term "domestic corporation that operates a business with factory facilities in a large city" subject to exemption from capital gains tax and special surtax under the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act shall not include a lessor as it refers to a business operator who directly operates a business. Therefore, in the case of leased parts from among transferred factory buildings, the area of leased parts shall be excluded from the total area of factory buildings just as an unauthorized building in calculating the standard area

[2] Articles 9 and 59-5 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4664 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14080 of Dec. 31, 1993), which ordering a tax payment notice to attach tax base and calculation statement of tax amount, does not merely provide a decoration for convenience in tax administration, but rather provides a decoration for the exclusion and careful and reasonable taxation under the Constitution and the principle of no taxation without law under the Framework Act on National Taxes by excluding the person of the tax authority, and allowing the taxpayer to provide a detailed notice of the details of the disposition and to provide the taxpayer with convenience in filing an objection. Thus, this provision should be deemed a mandatory provision. Thus, even if the items of the tax payment notice are omitted or the tax base and calculation of the tax amount are not known as legitimate, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer did not have any error in the grounds for taxation.

[3] The corporate tax on the income of the business year and the special surtax on the transfer of land, etc. constitute a separate taxation unit. Thus, the disposition imposing corporate tax on the income of the business year and the disposition imposing special surtax on the transfer of land, etc. shall be imposed separately. Thus, in the case of imposing and notifying corporate tax and special surtax on the corporation’s real estate transfer income, the notice of tax payment shall be notified by separately stating the items

[1] Article 42 (2) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993; see Article 60 (2) of the current Restriction of Special Taxation Act); Article 36 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14084 of Dec. 31, 1993; see Article 56 (1) of the current Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act); Article 13-2 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 1970 of Apr. 13, 1994; see Article 23 subparagraph 1 of the current Enforcement Rule of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act); Article 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14041 of Dec. 31, 1993; see Article 94-4 (6) of the current Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act) / [Attachment 19-4)]

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Nu745 delivered on March 8, 1988 (Gong1988, 696) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 83Nu602 delivered on February 14, 1984 (Gong1984, 460), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu629 delivered on February 26, 1985 (Gong1985, 479), Supreme Court Decision 85Nu56 delivered on May 12, 1987 (Gong1987, 980), Supreme Court Decision 83Nu404 delivered on February 9, 198 (Gong198, 516), Supreme Court Decision 88Nu7996 delivered on November 10, 198 (Gong198, 516), Supreme Court Decision 300Du31909 delivered on March 31, 209) / [300Du196490 (Gong1903, Mar. 19, 2009)

Dong New Industry Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Chungcheong Tax Office

Daejeon High Court Decision 97Gu827 delivered on January 19, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

1. First, we examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3.

According to Article 42(2) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993), Article 36(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14084 of Dec. 31, 1993), and Article 13-2 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1970 of Apr. 13, 1994), capital gains tax or special surtax shall be exempted on income derived from transfer of a factory site and building by a domestic corporation which operates business within a large city to relocate the factory to a provincial area. In case of the manufacturing factory, the site of the old factory or new factory exceeds the standard area of the factory under Article 84-4(3)6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14084 of Dec. 14, 1993). excluding the previous Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act

On the other hand, the term "domestic corporation that operates a business with factory facilities in a large city" under the above reduction and exemption provisions does not include a lessor as it refers to a business operator who directly operates a business (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu745 delivered on March 8, 198). In the case of leased parts among transferred factory buildings, the area of the leased parts should be excluded from the total area of a factory building like an unauthorized building in calculating the standard area of factory sites.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the disposition of this case was unlawful since the amount of corporate tax and special surtax calculated based on the above exceeds the amount of tax reduced or exempted calculated at the time of the disposition of this case on the ground that the amount of tax reduced or exempted exceeds the amount of tax calculated at the time when the plaintiff filed the return of corporate tax exceeds the amount of tax reduced or exempted at the time of the initial return of the land, and thus it is difficult to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful on the ground that the amount of tax reduced or exempted is not corporate tax 5,638.7m2, which is the size of the building directly used at the time of the Plaintiff’s return of the land in the old factory site, and the amount of the permitted building on the old factory site is 1,638m2,638m2, which is the size of the building site to be returned to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant calculated the amount of tax reduced or exempted and exempted by the former factory site within the scope of tax reduced or exempted.

In light of the relevant legal provisions and records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts, incomplete deliberation, misapprehension of legal principles as to calculation of the standard area for factory sites due to a violation of the rules of evidence, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The ground of appeal

2. Next, we examine the first ground for appeal.

A. After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the tax payment notice for the disposition of this case was unlawful on the grounds that the corporate tax and special surtax on gains from the transfer of real estate differ from their tax base and tax rate so the defendant should have stated the tax base and tax rate separately for each taxable object in the notice of tax payment for the disposition of this case, and that the disposition of this case was unlawful by omitting the tax rate. However, the special surtax is imposed on the gains from the transfer of land by the corporation, etc., but it is not an independent tax item listed in subparagraph 1 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the defendant entered the tax notice as a lump sum without distinguishing the corporate tax and special surtax from corporate tax and special surtax, since the defendant had already known the tax rate, such as corporate tax and special surtax upon filing a tax return by himself, and thus, the plaintiff did not appeal as to whether to appeal the disposition of this case due to the omission of the tax rate.

B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 9 (b) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4664, Dec. 31, 1993); Article 99-5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14080, Dec. 31, 1993); Article 99 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14080, Dec. 31, 1993); rather than a decoration provision for tax administration convenience, it is not a mere provision for the exclusion, prudent and reasonable taxation under the Constitution and the principle of no taxation without law under the Framework Act on National Taxes, thereby ensuring the fairness of tax administration by allowing a taxpayer to notify the taxpayer of the details of the disposition of taxation in detail, and thus, it is fundamental for the taxpayer to be deemed that this provision is a mandatory provision, and thus, if the items to be entered in the tax payment notice are omitted or the tax base and tax amount to be calculated are not known, it cannot be deemed that the taxpayer is not aware of legitimate grounds for taxation (see Supreme Court Decision 2098Nu196).

In addition, since the corporate tax on the income of the business year and the special surtax on the transfer of land, etc. form a separate taxation unit, the disposition imposing corporate tax on the income of the business year and the disposition imposing special surtax on the transfer of land, etc. shall be imposed separately (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4310, Oct. 30, 2001). Thus, when imposing and notifying corporate tax and special surtax on the corporation's real estate transfer income, the tax notice should separately state the basis for calculating the amount of tax such as the tax item, tax base, and

Therefore, the tax amount and the tax base of corporate tax and special surtax shall be stated in a lump sum without distinguishing them from each item of taxation, and the tax notice of this case which is not stated in the tax rate shall not be exempted from illegality

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the notice of this case was lawful is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defects of the notice of tax payment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)