Whether the business tax is taxable where the agricultural products harvested by himself/herself are peculiar and sold;

Even if agricultural products harvested from a farm where farmland tax is paid, if the harvester installs and sells the place of business, such sale is recognized as a business, so it is subject to the business tax and the business income tax.

Articles 9 and 7 of the Business Tax Act

63Nu113 delivered on August 31, 1963

Plaintiff

Head of Suwon Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As of September 18, 1965, the Plaintiff’s legal representative sought a ruling that the Defendant imposed the Plaintiff KRW 14,400 on the first term portion of the year 1965, and KRW 20,800 on the first term portion of the business income tax in October 6, 1965.

(1) Of the facts alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant imposed 14,400 won on the plaintiff as of September 18, 1965 for the first term portion of 1965, and 30,600 won for the first term portion of the business income tax in 1965 as of October 6 of the same year, but the fact that 30,600 won for the business income tax was adjusted to 20,800 won as of October 18, 1965, there is no dispute between both parties.

(2) The Plaintiff’s attorney runs a farm in the name of the Plaintiff’s head of Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 540-5 forest land of 1,676, 505, 1,418, and 515-2, 1,418, 515-2, and 1,023, which is a special agricultural crops, and the Plaintiff’s head of Sinwon-si, operated a fish farm in the name of “man-si,” and sells her her son and her son, a product of his own farmland at his request for the convenience of the majority of city citizens who find the Plaintiff’s farm in rest. As such, if the Plaintiff sells agricultural products harvested, the Plaintiff cannot be imposed business taxes pursuant to Article 9(1)5 of the Business Tax Act. Moreover, the Plaintiff paid farmland tax on the said farmland of 1,042, and thus, the Plaintiff’s business income tax cannot be imposed separately pursuant to Article 233(1) of the Local Tax Act.

(3) According to the proviso of Article 9 (1) 5 of the Business Tax Act, if the business place of the agricultural products harvested by the plaintiff were specifically established and sold, the sale of the agricultural products is subject to taxation. In addition, it is evident in light of Article 5 (1) 3 of the Income Tax Act that such sale is subject to taxation of the business income tax. In this case, if the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5 (Various types of cards), 6 (alias), witness 1 and 2 without dispute over the establishment of the business income tax, and all of the arguments in the verification of the principal source were combined, the plaintiff's testimony and testimony were adjacent to the sony field. Further, it is sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's business place equipped with all facilities related to the sale of the agricultural products was unique, and it is hard to find that the witness's testimony against this recognition is not subject to taxation by applying Article 9 (1) 4 of the Business Tax Act to the plaintiff's testimony under the premise that the defendant is not subject to taxation of Article 9 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-joon