(a) Whether the use of land is included in “real estate, the use of which is prohibited or restricted under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes” under Article 18(4)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, even in a case where the use of land is prohibited

(b) The case holding that construction regulations for the head of a Gun under the criteria for approval of a joint housing construction project by the Governor fall under prohibition or restriction;

A. “Real estate, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by law” under Article 18(4)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for one of the cases excluded from the determination of whether the interest on the loan constitutes non-business real estate in corporate tax, includes cases where the use of land is practically prohibited or restricted by administrative agency as part of its administrative action, even though the use of land is not prohibited or restricted by law itself.

(b) The case holding that construction regulations conducted by the head of a Gun according to the guidelines for approval of a joint housing construction project by the Do Governor fall under the prohibition or restriction of use under the Acts and subordinate statutes under Article 18 (4) 1

Article 18-3(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 43-2(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 18(4)1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Lee Domin-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

Authorized Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and the defendant-appellant

Head of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu6507 delivered on December 16, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In corporate tax, "real estate, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by laws and regulations" under Article 18 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of Corporate Tax Act, which is defined as one of the cases excluded from the determination of whether the interest on the loan constitutes non-business real estate, is subject to non-business real estate, shall be included in cases where the use of land is prohibited or restricted in reality because the administrative agency does not combine the construction permission as part of the administrative action, even though the provision of laws and regulations itself does not directly prohibit or restrict the use of land (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2503 delivered on Nov. 22, 1994).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff company, which is a housing construction company, established ten pieces of land in this case, such as 19-1,884 square meters for housing construction, before and after the end of January 22, 190 to July 18 of the same year after the land transaction permission for the current status of the local government, the court below determined that the plaintiff's joint housing construction project approval standards for the purpose of promoting the residential stability of the Do residents by expanding urban infrastructure facilities on November 10, 1990, were prepared within the 19-19-1, 19-1, 19-1, 19-1, 19-1, 300 square meters for the housing construction of the above land and requesting the construction work of the above land to the 9-19-2 area for which the plaintiff applied for the above approval of the above common housing construction project had no choice but to supply the above land to the 19-year area for non-business purposes.

The above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete hearing as discussed. There is no reason to discuss.

In addition, the issue of other grounds of appeal is that the plaintiff applied for approval of a project plan without any preparation or failed to meet other requirements, and even if not, the remaining land, excluding the area for which the plaintiff applied for permission of construction, among the land acquired, is non-business real estate. However, if a multi-family housing construction with infrastructure other than general waterworks according to the local circumstances where the land of this case is located, which made it impossible according to the above approval standard despite the plaintiff's continued efforts to promote the project, it is reasonable to view that the land of this case constitutes "the case where the use is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the law" as stipulated in Article 18 (4) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and it is not different because the plaintiff did not have applied for a legitimate authorization or permission for its use.

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)