본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
농업협동조합이 취득한 부동산을 고유업무에 사용여부(기각)

[Case Number]

200-0369 (200.03.09)

[Items]

Other

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

Since it is not deemed that part of the real estate acquired by an agricultural cooperative is used for its proper purpose, disposition imposing and assessing aggregate land tax, etc. is reasonable.

[Related Acts]

Article 58 of the Local Tax Act (Presentation of Plan for Use of Stored Tobacco)

【Disposition】

The claimant's request for review shall be dismissed.

【Reasoning】

1. Summary of the original disposition;

처분청은 청구인이 1996년~1999년도 종합토지세 과세기준일(6.1) 현재 소유하고 있는 ㅇㅇ시 ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 ㅇㅇ번지외 2필지 토지(2525.46㎡)상의 건축물 8,960.4㎡(이하 “이건 부동산”이라 한다)중 일부(1996년 : 3,156,27㎡, 1997년 이후 4,493.17㎡, 이하 “쟁점 건물”이라 한다)를임대하거나 청구인이 수익사업에 사용하고 있으므로 쟁점 건물의 부속토지를 종합토지세 등 과세면제 대상에 해당되지 않는다고 보아 그 과세표준액(1,901,258,246원)에 지방세법 제234조의16제2항의 세율을 적용하여 산출한 세액에서 이미 납부한 세액을 차감한 1996년부터 1999년까지의 종합토지세 5,501,390원, 교육세 1,100,270원, 합계 6,601,660원을 1999.12.3. 부과 고지하였다.

2. Purpose and reason of the request.

The claimant is seeking correction of the disposition of this case and the reasons for such correction:

The claimant asserts that the remainder (2,954.57 square meters) of the building at issue, excluding the leased part (201.7 square meters), among the buildings at issue, is subject to tax exemption, such as aggregate land tax, etc., because a wedding hall, bath bath, and swimming pool is installed so that members and associate members can use it, and the usage fees are collected less than the general business operators. This constitutes the establishment and operation of common facilities necessary for the business or livelihood of members as stipulated in Article 58 (5) of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act.

3. Judgment of the Republic of Korea

A dispute over a request for re-determination is whether a part of the real estate acquired by an agricultural cooperative can be considered as being used directly for its unique duties if it is used as a wedding hall, bath, or swimming pool.

First of all, Article 290 (3) 1 of the Local Tax Act provides that real estate used directly by an agricultural cooperative established under the Agricultural Cooperatives Act for its unique duties as of the tax base date shall be exempted from the property tax and aggregate land tax. Article 1 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act provides that the purpose of the association is to promote the balanced development of the national economy by promoting the promotion of agricultural productivity and the enhancement of the social and economic status of farmers through the voluntary cooperative organization of farmers. Article 5 (2) of the same Act provides that the association shall not engage in profit-making or speculation. Article 58 (1) 5 and 5-4 of the same Act provides that the association can carry out the installation of joint-use facilities and the installation and management of welfare facilities necessary for the business or life of its members in order to achieve its purpose.

Then, in light of the purport of this case, the claimant's facilities cannot be deemed to be used for the claimant's own proper purpose, and the user fees are similar to those of the non-members. There is no particular difference between the union members and non-members. As to the wedding hall operated by the agricultural cooperative, the Supreme Court prohibits "for the purpose of pursuing a profit-making business of the union for its members or non-members, the operation of the cooperative's own profit-making business regardless of the union members is in violation of the above laws and regulations and it cannot be deemed as the operation of the cooperative's own business for its own purpose" (97Nu7095 of April 28, 1998). The claimant's facilities cannot be deemed to be used for the claimant's own proper purpose, and it cannot be extended to the real estate tax subject to exemption from taxation, such as the aggregate land tax, etc. for the business for the economic profit of the union itself. Thus, the disposition of the disposition of the aggregate land tax is not erroneous.

Therefore, since the claimant's assertion is recognized as groundless, it is decided as ordered in accordance with Article 77 (1) of the Local Tax Act.

April 26, 2000

Secretary-General of the Ministry of Justice;