Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap7435 ( October 29, 2018)

The requirements for registration of rental business operators under preferential provisions should be strictly interpreted among the requirements for reduction or exemption.

The requirements for registration of rental business operators not subject to late payment under the Corporate Tax Act should be strictly interpreted in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law.

Article 55-2 of the Corporate Tax Act

2018Nu56154 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

○○ Co., Ltd.

○ Head of tax office

October 04, 2018

November 1, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of 20*.*.* The defendant's 20* 1*,**,**,*******(including additional tax) and the disposition of imposition of 1*,**,****(including additional tax) of 200.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition of some contents as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts to be removed or added.

○ Parts from the 5th bottom to the 6th line shall be as follows:

Article 6 (1) of the Rental Housing Act provides that a person who intends to rent housing of more than the number of houses as prescribed by the Presidential Decree may file an application for registration of rental business operator. Article 6 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act, before December 13, 2005, provides that the number of houses of the rental housing may be registered as a rental business operator under the Rental Housing Act. The Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act was amended by Presidential Decree No. 19178 on December 13, 2005, and Article 6 (1) 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act is amended by Presidential Decree No. 19178 on December 13, 2005; Article 6 (3) of the Addenda of the Rental Housing Act, which is amended by Presidential Decree No. 10655, May 16, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 2015, May 27, 2008, newly amended by Presidential Decree No. 1975, Jun. 1, 2008.

Therefore, the Plaintiff could register the first two houses (103 and 1202) among the apartment houses of this case as rental business operators as of February 16, 2005. Notwithstanding the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act which was made on December 13, 2005 and June 20, 2008, the Plaintiff still could maintain the status of rental business operators pursuant to the previous provisions. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff acquired the last two houses (121, 1501) from among the apartment houses of this case, which were not registered as rental business operators around June 19, 2006, even if the amended Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act was applied, it was possible to register as rental business operators under the Rental Housing Act after the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act again on November 26, 2008. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff failed to meet the requirements under Article 21-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Rental Housing Act without being registered as rental business operators even after the said date.

○ In addition to the attached Form 2(2) of this decision, the addition to the relevant laws and regulations shall be added to the attached Form.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.