Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-73167 ( October 30, 2018)

Cho Jae-2017-Su 1288 (Law No. 22, 2017)

The leased farmland shall not be deemed directly used for proper purpose business because the lease of farmland is not included in the proper purpose business of the clan.

Farmland rent is not included in the proper purpose business of a clan, and it cannot be deemed that the farmland leased is directly used for proper purpose business and is not exempt from taxation because it contributed indirectly.

Article 3(3) of the Corporate Tax Act

Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

2018Nu42940 Revocation of revocation of revocation of corporate tax rectification

○○ Of species ○○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap73167 decided March 30, 2018

July 4, 2018

August 22, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on December 0, 2016 against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the modification of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows 2. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Revised parts

○ Not less than 4 up to 4 8 ' above' up to 7 's below' as follows:

"The interpretation of tax laws and regulations shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the law, barring special circumstances, in the context of the principle of tax law or the requirement of non-taxation or tax reduction and exemption, and the expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation without reasonable grounds shall not be permitted, and in particular, the strict interpretation of the provisions that can be seen as clearly preferential provisions among the requirements of reduction and exemption accords with the principle of tax equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du7392, May 28, 2004)."

○ 5 Up to the 5th sentence below the following modifications:

Article 3 (3) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 2 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which fall under the exceptional provision for reduction or exemption, are expanded or analogically interpreted without reasonable grounds in violation of the principle of no taxation without any justifiable reason (On the other hand, with respect to the land 000-2,00-3, the defendant seems to have used the above land for the proper purpose of the clan's clan's clan's own business by directly cultivating the above land and using agricultural products harvested by the clan members for religious services in accordance with the purport reported by the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's disposition of this case, which deemed that it is obvious that the land is used for profit-making business by leasing it to a third party

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with this conclusion.

The judgment is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.