Whether Article 18(4) Subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act Article 18(4) of the Corporate Tax Act (affirmative) applies to the acquiring company of real estate for non-business use

Article 18 (4) 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1968 of March 12, 1994) which stipulates "real estate subject to the provisions of Article 46 (2) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act" as one of the real estate not deemed non-business real estate, applies to a transferee company at least in the case of a company designated for industrial rationalization.

Article 18 (4) 8 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1968 of March 12, 1994)

New Media Co., Ltd. (Dongwest Law Firm et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seocheon Director of the Tax Office (Attorney Choi Woo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu5603 delivered on March 14, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below is just in holding that Article 18 (4) 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1968 of March 12, 1994) containing "real estate subject to Article 46 (2) of the Act on the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Act No. 4666 of December 31, 1993) which uses "real estate for non-business purposes" as one of the real estate which is not considered as non-business purposes, is applicable to the acquiring company if the acquiring company is a designated company for industrial rationalization as well, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above provision.

Therefore, 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 Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)