Whether the act of receiving a letter of approval to purchase grain for the purpose of the inducement of loans and transferring it and receiving won currency constitutes "business activity" under Article 1 of the former Business Tax Act.

The act of receiving a letter of approval for purchase of grain equivalent to the amount of the loan from the U.S. Products and Credit Corporation for the purpose of the inducement of the loan and transferring it to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in accordance with the terms and conditions of approval for the introduction of the loan and taking over won currency to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry shall not constitute the so-called "business act" under Article 1 of the former Business Tax Act

Article 1 of the former Business Tax Act; Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Business Tax Act

Attorney Kim Jin-jin et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The Director of Incheon Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 77Gu336 delivered on May 2, 1978

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

(1) As to the first ground for appeal:

In light of the record, the court below's decision that the plaintiff company's act of transferring the above grain to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is not a so-called "business activity" that continues to engage in the same kind of act for the purpose of profit-making under Article 1 of the former Business Tax Act and Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, because the plaintiff company received a letter of approval to purchase grain equivalent to the amount of the loan from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, and transferred it to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry in accordance with the terms and conditions of approval to introduce the loan, and actually imported and sold the above grain to the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs. Thus, the court below's decision that the plaintiff company's act of transferring the above grain to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is not a so-called "business activity" as stipulated in the above Act, and it is just and there is no error of law as to the business

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

After examining the records in detail, the court below judged that the act of the plaintiff's above grain purchase approval was different from the act of the transfer of grain itself, and it cannot be recognized that there was an error of misconception of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or an incomplete hearing, and therefore there is no error

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)