A. Whether the provision of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the volume of non-business real estate, can be said to be invalid in violation of the parent law, on the ground that all the standards set forth in the Enforcement Rule of the same Act were not taken into account at once

B. Whether Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, before and after the amendment, unfairly expands the taxation requirement beyond the delegation scope of the parent law

A. The purpose of Article 18-3 (1) 3 and Article 18-3 (1) 1 (the above amendment) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 190) which provides for the holding of real estate for non-business purposes as non-business purposes as non-deductible requirement of interest paid to a corporation shall be to prevent the deterioration of the financial structure of a corporation from depending on other capital, and to prevent corporate expansion, from benefiting from corporate capital, and to encourage a company to engage in sound economic activities through productive management of corporate capital by preventing corporate speculation through financial assets of a large enterprise and reckless corporate expansion, and to promote efficient utilization of land. It shall be deemed that the above provision violates the provisions of Article 43-2 (5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 190) and Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the same Act (amended by the above amendment) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act.

(b)Paragraph 3 of Article 18 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act before and after the amendment of Paragraph (a) shall exclude land for exclusive use by a corporation, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, land for parking lot business, etc. shall be excluded from land for non-business use, and its application requirements shall be set forth in detail, so it shall not be deemed that the provisions of Article 18 paragraph (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, such as Paragraph (5), Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (3) of Article 43-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, stipulate land for non-business use in accordance with the purport of Paragraph (a) of the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, such as Corporate Tax Act and the Corporate Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof (after the amendment), which provide for land for non-business use as one of the following cases:

Articles 18-3(1)3 and 18-3(1)1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990); Articles 43-2(5), 43-2(1), and 43-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 190); Articles 18(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1818 of Apr. 4, 1990; Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1835 of Oct. 22, 1990; Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1844 of Feb. 28, 1991)

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1643 delivered on October 17, 1992 (Gong192, 3328)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu26849 delivered on May 13, 1994

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. The purport of Article 18-3 (1) 3 and Article 18-3 (1) 1 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990) which provides that the possession of real estate for non-business use of a corporation shall be prohibited from deteriorating the financial structure of a corporation due to unreasonable corporate expansion dependent on outside capital, and it shall be to induce sound economic activities of a corporation through the productive management of corporate capital and to promote efficient utilization of land through the prevention of corporate financing's productive expansion of real estate and non-productive business through the productive management of corporate capital, and the above provision of Article 43-2 (5) and (1) 1 of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990) shall be 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 1, 199). 208 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be 198 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

2. Furthermore, Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Rule after the above amendment provides that the term “real estate for non-business use” in Article 43-2(5), (1), and (3) of the Decree refers to the real estate falling under any of the following subparagraphs, and Article 18(3) of the Enforcement Rule after the above amendment provides that land for non-business use shall be designated through 13 or 21 units (before the above amendment), and subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Rule provides that land for parking lot shall be one of them. However, in a case where a parking lot is directly related to the business of the juristic person in question and is mandatorily constructed, that is, a corporation’s own parking lot land, parking lot land for the building, parking lot business, parking lot business, parking lot business, tea or cycle, land for automobile depots shall be excluded from non-business use land, and thus, the above provision does not constitute a provision that unreasonably expands the taxation requirements beyond the delegation scope under the above Act and the Enforcement Decree.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that Article 18 (3) 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act was not invalid after the amendment is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the above legal principles.

3. 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)