Whether transfer margin of forest land which is the basic property of a school juristic person is subject to the corporate tax special surtax.

The gains from the transfer of forest land, which is the basic property of a school juristic person, shall not be subject to special surtax, unless such gains are deemed income from forestry or real estate business.

Article 1 (Liability for Tax Payment) Article 59-2 of the Corporate Tax Act (Gu)

Supreme Court Decision 68Nu215 Decided March 31, 1969

School juristic persons in the Republic of Korea;

Head of Tax Office

The disposition of imposition of KRW 10,367,821 and the defense tax of KRW 1,777,201 against the Plaintiff on July 27, 1979 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

As stated in the order of the Plaintiff on July 27, 1979, the facts that the Defendant issued and disposed of corporate tax, special surtax, and the defense detailed and disposition against the Plaintiff as stated above are no dispute between the parties. If the purport of the argument was added to the entries in Eul evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, Eul evidence 3-1 through 6, and 7-1 through 5 of Eul evidence 3-5, the Plaintiff, as a school juristic person on February 24, 1978, sold to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 604, the amount of KRW 43,879,40, and the amount of KRW 29,587,758 (the transfer value under the sales contract, the amount of KRW 487,97, and the amount of KRW 400, the amount of capital gains under Article 29-26, the amount of capital gains under Article 29-26, the amount of capital gains under the above provision of the Corporate Tax Act may be recognized as the tax base.

However, the tax base of special surtax for the transfer of land, etc. in the juristic person stipulated in Article 59-2 of the above Act shall be the provision on the tax base of special surtax for the transfer of land, etc. It shall be decided first on whether the transfer of the above real estate is subject to corporate tax or special surtax prior to its existence. According to Article 1 of the above Act, corporate tax shall be imposed on the juristic person established under Article 10 of the Private School Act, such as the plaintiff 1. 1. 1. 7% of the revenue generated from the profit-making business or revenue stated in the following subparagraph 1. 7% of the total operating expenses of the plaintiff 1. 7% of the total operating expenses of the above 90% of the total operating expenses of the plaintiff 1. 7% of the total operating expenses of the above 1. 7% of the total operating expenses of the 90% of the forest land and the 1970% of the total operating expenses of the above 190% of the forest land.

Thus, in light of the series of circumstances of the above recognition, since the plaintiff's act of this case cannot be deemed to be engaged in forestry or real estate business, the plaintiff's act of this case can not be deemed to be an object of taxation of corporate tax, special surtax and defense tax, even if it is assumed that the plaintiff has

Therefore, without examining the existence and amount of marginal profits arising from the transfer of real estate in the plaintiff, each disposition of corporate tax, special surtax and defense tax imposed by the defendant against the plaintiff pursuant to Article 59-2 of the Corporate Tax Act and Articles 4 and 6 of the Defense Tax Act is an illegal disposition that is imposed by mistake of taxable objects and thus, it cannot be exempted from the revocation of the above disposition. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the above disposition is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge) Maximum of Kim Young-il