Whether it constitutes an unfair act under Article 55 (1) of the Income Tax Act that entered into a real estate lease contract with a related party and received the lease deposit after a considerable period of time.

In a case where a real estate lease contract with a person with a special relationship under Article 111 (1) 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10665 of Dec. 31, 1981) was concluded and used as a factory site, and the lease deposit was paid for the first time on Feb. 18, 1979 without justifiable grounds, it would eventually be leased free of charge from the date of the lease contract to the date of payment of the lease deposit, and therefore, it constitutes an unfair act under Article 55 (1) of the Income Tax Act by unreasonably reducing the tax burden.

Article 55 (1) of the Income Tax Act; Article 111 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10665 of December 31, 1981)

[Defendant-Appellant] Lee Jae-soo

Head of Central Tax Office

Daegu High Court Decision 84Gu59 delivered on February 1, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on the evidence adopted by the court below, found that the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the non-party Busan Metropolitan City and it was an oligopolistic shareholder on February 18, 1979, and was paid 100,000 won as a security deposit between the plaintiff and the non-party Korea Industrial Corporation in a special relationship under Article 111 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10665 of Dec. 31, 1981) and the non-party Korea Industrial Corporation in a special relationship under Article 111 (1) 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10665 of Dec. 31, 1981) as a security deposit, and completed a lease contract with the plaintiff in the name of the 28th of the same month and completed the registration of creation of superficies in the name of the plaintiff in the name of the 30 years from the contract date.

In addition, if the facts are the same, it would eventually be leased free of charge from the date of the above lease contract until the payment of the lease deposit, and thus, it would be an unfair act under Article 55 (1) of the Income Tax Act because the tax burden has been reduced unfairly, and thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit. In the above case, since the provisions of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act are invalid or the dividend income to the oligopolistic shareholder is refunded, the theory that it is necessary to determine whether there was an unfair reduction in tax

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)