Whether it constitutes non-business real estate

Real estate rental business is not a real estate for non-business use, because it is not related to the business or owned for the increase of land price as the Plaintiff's property with the business.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 3,926,590, which the defendant attached to the plaintiff on December 16, 1992, shall be revoked. 2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Details of the imposition;

In full view of Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, evidence 2, evidence 3, evidence 1, evidence 1, and evidence 1-1 through 7 of Eul evidence 1-7, the plaintiff owned ○○○○ Dong ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in a 991.74 square meters per annum on 191.74 meters per annum on the ○○○○○○ branch market, and the defendant is a juristic person which runs the business of leasing the above building. The plaintiff on December 16, 1992, filed a report on the tax base and tax amount of corporate tax for the business year from April 1, 1990 to March 31, 191, and imposed corporate tax of the above real estate as stated in the disposition of this case on the ground that the total amount of KRW 6,235,710, depreciation expenses, KRW 7,088,152, and KRW 13,88,652, which was not directly related to its business, thus imposing corporate tax of this case.

2. The legality of a disposition of imposition.

A. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff argues that since the above real estate was leased entirely to another person with the only property of the plaintiff who operates the real estate rental business for about thirty years, it is not related to the plaintiff's business or owned real estate for the increase of land price, it is not a non-business real estate under Article 18-3 of the Corporate Tax Act, and therefore it cannot be subject to non-business non-business deductible expenses pursuant to subparagraph 7 of Article 16 of the Corporate Tax Act, and even if the above real estate falls under non-business real estate, it is not subject to non-business deductible expenses pursuant to subparagraph 7 of Article 16 of the Corporate Tax Act, the specific degree related to the corporation's business should be followed in order to take a non-business deductible expenses pursuant to subparagraph 7 of Article 16 of the Corporate Tax Act.

According to the provisions of Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 43-2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18 (3) 11 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1844 of Feb. 28, 1991), real estate used for lease, the annual revenue amount of which is less than 7/100 of the real estate value of which falls short of 7/100 of the real estate value, shall be regarded as non-business real estate, etc., and according to the provisions of Article 16 subparagraph 7 of the same Act and Article 30 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the above real estate acquisition and management of non-business real estate shall be excluded from deductible expenses. Thus, the defendant asserts that the measures that excluded the property

B. Determination

According to Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 43-2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 18 (3) 11 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1844 of Feb. 28, 1991), real estate used for lease of which annual revenue amount is less than 7/100 of the real estate value shall be regarded as real estate for non-business use, etc., and real estate for which annual revenue amount is less than 7/100 of the real estate value is less than 7/100 of the real estate value shall not be included in deductible expenses, and Article 16 subparagraph 7 of the same Act shall not include a certain portion of interest on loan to a domestic corporation that acquires or owns such real estate for non-business use, etc. in deductible expenses.

However, Article 43-2 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 18 (3) 11 (a) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1844, Feb. 28, 1991) are real estate used for lease and its annual revenue amount is less than 7/100 of the real estate price, if it is not deemed that it is not directly related to the business of the corporation concerned or it is held to acquire profits from the increase in land price due to the increase in land use, etc., it cannot be deemed that it is real estate within the meaning of Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act. Considering the above evidence and the purport of the argument in the testimony of Kim Jong-sung as a corporation with real estate rental business purpose, the real estate is a corporation owned by the plaintiff, with the exception of the institution room and management room from 30 years to 30 years ago, and there is no contrary evidence, it cannot be deemed that the above real estate is not related to the above real estate use cost.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.