The commencement by another person shall not be considered as the commencement by the plaintiff, and the commencement by another person shall not be considered as the land for business on the ground of sale purpose.

The "land that has commenced (in cases where the date of commencement is unclear, it shall be based on the date on which a report on commencement of construction is submitted) for the purpose of use for the business" excluded from the land for non-business shall be applicable to the land for non-business in cases where the transferor has

2013Guhap5789 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax

AAA Holdings Co., Ltd.

The Director of Gangnam District Office

March 28, 2014

May 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the corporate tax on July 6, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on July 6, 2011 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Real estate sales contract, etc.;

"1) On July 3, 2013, AAA Holdings Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "B") established AAAAAA after dividing the real estate lease, opening and selling business into two parts, and AAAAA took over the legal proceedings; hereinafter "AAAAA" corporation and AA et al.") entered into a sales contract with BB (hereinafter "BB") on the land of this case on October 3, 2007 as follows (the plaintiff entered into an agreement that changed the real estate purchaser by replacing BB and the corporation to be newly established on October 19, 2006; hereinafter "the land of this case").

1. BB shall pay to the Plaintiff the sales price OOO of the instant site as classified below.

Classification

Amount paid (won)

Time of Payment

Contract deposit

OOO

May 25, 2007

Balance

OOO

By February 3, 2008

guidance.

OOO

Article 5 (Mandatory Matters)

2. After entering into this contract, the Plaintiff shall use necessary documents, such as a written consent to land use and a certificate of personal seal impression, for the purpose of authorization and permission.

3. BB shall not engage in any act that damages or alters the current state of the site of this case as of the date of this contract, including installation of advertisements and facilities, until any balance is paid.

Article 6 (Tax, Public Charges, etc.)

The taxes and public charges incurred on the instant site shall be borne by the Plaintiff on the basis of the balance payment date, and all public charges and public charges incurred prior to the remainder payment date shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and all taxes and public charges incurred after the remainder payment date shall be borne by BB.

(3) On May 25, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed to a sales contract made with BB on the instant consideration, and entered into a sales contract with CCC Entertainment (hereinafter “CCC”) on the same content as CCC, a corporation (hereinafter “CCC”). The Plaintiff agreed to substitute for the payment of down payment for CCC and CCC OOOOO of the down payment already paid. (4) On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff revised the sales contract as follows.

Article 3 (Methods for Payment of Sale Price)

1. The CCC shall pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price OO of the instant site as classified below.

Classification

Amount paid (won)

Time of Payment

Jinay

The first down payment

OOO

May 25, 2007

contract terms

2. The second down payment

OOO

By January 31, 2008

part payments

OOO

By January 31, 2008

Balance

OOO

Within seven days from the commencement date;

guidance.

OOO

2. Upon the receipt of intermediate payment pursuant to paragraph (1), the Plaintiff shall deliver all necessary documents for the registration of disposal trust to CCC and trust the instant site. All necessary expenses for the trust shall be borne by CCC in full.

"3. CCC shall pay any balance within seven (7) days from the date of the commencement of the construction after obtaining the authorization and permission for the instant site. CCC shall submit to the Plaintiff the balance payment undertaking of the financial institution at the time of intermediate payment in order to guarantee any balance payment." and Article 5 (Mandatory Matters)

2. The Plaintiff shall approve the completion of the authorization and permission documents and the commencement report on the instant site in the name of the Plaintiff until the commencement date. To this end, the Plaintiff shall deliver all the documents pertaining to the authorization and permission and the commencement report within one day from the date of application of the CCC. The CCC shall use all the documents delivered by the Plaintiff in compliance with the purpose of submission of authorization and permission and commencement date.

3. The Plaintiff’s name is transferred to CCC without any separate condition after the authorization, permission, and completion of the start.

Article 6 (Tax, Public Charges, etc.)

The taxes and public charges incurred on the instant site shall be borne by the Plaintiff on the basis of the trust registration date, and all public charges and public charges incurred prior to the trust registration date, and all public charges and public charges incurred from the trust registration date shall be borne by the CCC. In addition, CCC shall bear all all the expenses and public charges incurred due to the authorization, permission, and commencement

"(5) On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate disposal trust agreement (subsidiary disposal trust) with DD Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as DD Trust), which entrusts the instant land as follows, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust with DD Trust."

The purpose of this trust is to dispose of the land of this case by DD Trust.

Article 2 (Acquisition of Trust Real Estate)

① The Plaintiff shall deliver the instant site to a DD Trust upon the conclusion of the trust contract, and the Plaintiff shall accept the instant DD Trust and make registration of transfer of ownership and trust based on the trust.

Article 3 (Trust Period)

(1) The trust contract period shall be from the execution date of the contract to the repayment date of claims by the beneficiary, but if the registration of ownership transfer has been made by disposing of the site in this case, the period shall be terminated.

Article 4 (Beneficiary)

(1) Beneficiaries under this trust contract shall be determined as follows:

“Name: CCCDPP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CCCD”) and Article 6 (Disposal and Management of Trust Real Estate)

A trustee shall dispose of the trust real estate at the disposal price, method of disposal, and disposal conditions deemed appropriate, and if he/she has agreed on the management affairs until the disposal is made, he/she may directly entrust the management affairs for the lease and the management affairs for the lease to a third person appointed by the trustee

Article 9 (Receipt of Trust) Profits of the trust shall be rents accruing from the trusted real estate, and profits accruing from the management of money belonging to the trust property, and other equivalents.

Article 10 (Certificate of Rights to Benefit) A trustee may, if requested by a beneficiary, deliver to the beneficiary a certificate of rights to benefit in trust, and in such cases, the certificate of rights to benefit may be divided and prepared by indicating the ratio of shares.

Article 12 (Bearing of Expenses)

(1) Taxes and public charges on trust property, maintenance expenses, financial expenses, and other various expenses necessary for the performance of trust affairs, and losses without fault of the trustee in the performance of trust affairs shall be borne by the beneficiary.

Matters of special agreement

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this trust is to preserve and dispose of ownership of the instant site as stipulated in the trust agreement in order to secure safe and smooth performance of claims and obligations under the real estate sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and CCC, and to secure claims against CCC by CCC.

Article 3 (Trust Registration, etc.)

(4) ADD trust shall carry out the management of ownership and the transfer of ownership on the register until it disposes of the trusted real estate, and no liability shall be any responsibility other than the duty of due care for the relevant duties.

Article 5 (Payment, etc. of Sale Price)

(1) Sales proceeds and methods of payment thereof shall be governed by a sales contract concluded between the Plaintiff and CCC.

(2) The CCC and CCCD shall submit details of the purchase price and evidential data (such as a copy of a certificate of payment or a copy of a passbook receipt) to the DDR before termination of the trust contract or cancellation of the trust registration, and DD shall confirm whether the payment is made in full on the basis of the fiduciary duty.

③ Only if the purchase price is not paid in full under the sales contract, the Plaintiff may request DDR to terminate the trust, and DDR may request CCC to prove the details of payment at the request of the Plaintiff.

Article 6 (Transfer, etc. of Ownership)

① With respect to Article 5 of the above special agreement, a DD trust shall be issued to a third party designated by CCC or CCC, if a request for transfer of ownership is made to the trust property of CCC, after the full payment of the purchase price is confirmed under the sales contract.

Article 7 (Responsibility for Extradition, Explanation, Limited Real Rights, etc.)

① The Plaintiff shall cancel all of the limited real rights and rights other than ownership (including preservative measures, such as possession, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, and collateral security) that obstruct the Plaintiff’s full transfer of ownership and exercise of the instant site at his/her responsibility and expense before the balance is paid.

Article 9 (Disposal of Trust Real Estate)

In the event that the CCC or a third party designated by the CCC under Article 6(1) of the Special Terms and Conditions, such as the transfer of ownership is impossible or it is deemed impossible to objectively implement the development project, such as the failure to transfer ownership or failure to implement the authorization, etc., DDR may dispose of the instant site upon the request of CCC DNA, and CCC does not raise any objection thereto.

Article 10 (Liability for Taxes and Public Charges)

Notwithstanding Article 12 of the Disposition Trust Contract, all expenses incurred in reporting and paying taxes and public charges on the site of this case shall be borne by the plaintiff until the date of registration of trust under Article 6 of the Special Agreement, and the expenses shall be borne by the CCC after the date of registration of trust.

Article 13 (Limitation on Rights to Benefit)

1. Notwithstanding Article 9 of this Agreement, the Plaintiff’s right to benefit is limited to the right to claim the purchase price or the right to claim the transfer of ownership at the time of termination of the trust agreement, and the Plaintiff’s right to benefit (the right to claim the purchase price and the right to claim the transfer of ownership at the time of termination of trust), notwithstanding the status of the beneficiary of the CCC

(2) The Plaintiff’s right to benefit becomes void simultaneously with the full payment of the purchase price of the CCC or CCCD.

Article 16 (Preferential Application of Matters under Special Agreement)

The provisions of this special agreement shall prevail over this Agreement.

Article 17 (Other Matters)

1. The provisions of Articles 5, 6, 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 of this Agreement shall be omitted under this Agreement.

(6) On January 31, 2008, the Plaintiff received the second down payment OOOO and intermediate OOOOO from CCC, and received the balance payment guarantee from EE comprehensive finance.

(b) Report on commencement, etc.;

(1) On December 7, 2007, the head of the OOO had the following O urban planning facilities (cultural facilities) approved the implementation plan.

1. Project execution site: Site in this case;

2. Type and title of the project;

○ Types: Cultural facilities;

“○ Name: FF Proj”, 4. Name and address of the implementer;

○ Name: Plaintiff

5. Scheduled date and scheduled completion date of the project.

○ Date scheduled for commencement: December 2007

The scheduled completion date of ○○: December 31, 2010

(2) On February 28, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a building permit for the construction of the downtown-type digital culture framework with respect to the instant site from the head of OOO head, and reported the commencement of construction on March 13, 2008.

(3) On April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff received CCC (OOO) OOO on April 3, 2008, and CCC, a subsidiary company of CCC, completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant site.

(c) Disposition, etc.;

(1) The Plaintiff reported and paid the instant land as non-business land in the business year 2008 OOOO.

(2) On July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff commenced the construction of the downtown-type digital culture to the Defendant on March 13, 2008. Since the Plaintiff transferred the instant case or the instant land on April 3, 2008, the instant land is the land for business. The Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of corporate tax on the grounds that it is the land for business. The Plaintiff was refunded the said corporate tax by the Defendant on August 25, 2009.

(3) In around 2011, the Board of Audit and Inspection requested the Defendant to impose corporate tax on the ground that the instant site constitutes non-business land, as CCC used the instant site on the trust date, and the Plaintiff possessed and transferred the shower site for less than three years.

(4) Accordingly, on July 6, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice of correction and correction of the OOOOO of corporate tax for the business year 2008 that was refunded to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (5) The Plaintiff filed a request for review on September 8, 201, but was dismissed by the Board of Audit and Inspection on March 21, 201.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's Nos. 1 through 8, 22 (including virtual numbers), Eul's No. 1, 2 and 4 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the following circumstances, the instant disposition, which was based on the truth that the instant site was transferred on January 31, 2008, the date of registration of trust, or that CCC commenced, was unlawful.

(1) Although the instant land was disposed of on or before January 31, 2008, under the premise that it was transferred on or before the date of registration of trust, the Plaintiff was determined on the basis of the following: (a) before April 3, 2008, the date of registration of ownership transfer, the Plaintiff used the management of the instant land and the right to benefit; (b) a building permit, etc. was made in the name of the Plaintiff; (c) a real estate disposal trust agreement was concluded for the convenience of a purchaser’s financing; and (d) a registration under a trust agreement was not deemed a transfer under tax law; and (e) the transfer date of the instant land is determined on the basis of the date of registration of ownership transfer under Article 68(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 12302, Feb. 4, 2009).

(2) In addition, since Article 46-2(1)5 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the period during which construction is in progress after the date of acquisition of the relevant land and the date of commencement of construction for the purpose of the construction for the purpose of using the land (if the date of commencement is unclear, it shall be based on the date of submission of the report on commencement of construction)" shall not be deemed land for non-business purposes under Article 55-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), since the Plaintiff’s disposition was taken on the premise that the land owner was led to the commencement of the construction of the instant site, but the Plaintiff did not stipulate the subject of the construction permit, etc., which is not the owner of the land for non-business purposes. The purpose of Article 46-2(1)5 of the Corporate Tax Act is to directly use the land for non-business purposes after the commencement of construction, regardless of its nature.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Installation, etc. of fences

(A) Around November 2006, the Plaintiff installed two-meter fences on the boundary of the instant site, and putting up a banner on each wall, which was prohibited from entering the instant site, and sold the land as a scke and prevented the Plaintiff from running the packing business on the instant site.

(B) The Plaintiff entered into a system maintenance contract with GG Co., Ltd. from December 2006 to March 2008, and accordingly, performed security activities, such as outside persons’ access control.

(C) On April 25, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the telephone use fee established at the site of this case (from March 1, 2008 to March 31, 2008).

(2) The statements of interested parties

(A) The legal statement of Kim H

○ The Plaintiff is aware that the instant site was acquired for the development of the initial large-scale cultural facility, etc.

As the Plaintiff acquired the instant site, the Plaintiff attempted to intrude into the body of the Gu and the police to occupy the instant site without permission. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to engage in the illegal packing horse business with the assistance of the Gu and the police. Since then, the Plaintiff installed a steel fence exceeding 2 meters around the instant site, and installed a corrective device at the entrance, and thoroughly controlled the outside person’s entry. The Plaintiff installed a number of placards with the prohibition of entry.

○ The Plaintiff’s employee directly set up a container stuff on the instant site, and also requested a specialized security enterprise to provide security services.

○ There is no fact that the Plaintiff had the buyer occupy and use the instant site after the date of conclusion of the sales contract.

The ○ Real Estate Trust Contract was prepared to the effect that the Plaintiff would provide convenience to the buyer so that the buyer can obtain a loan from the bank. The buyer borrowed funds as collateral for the above Trust Contract and paid intermediate payments to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff provided only all the names of various permissions to provide convenience to the buyer. The report on the commencement of construction is provided only in the name of the plaintiff, and the actual commencement of construction was made by the buyer.

(B) A statement of the facts of November 1, 2013 by the two JJs

○○ OII is the Director of the Site Management Office, and bothJ served as the field manager from November 2006 to April 2008, and managed the site.

○ The instant site was the site at the time of acquisition, but was a public announcement in the commercial area, and was in a broad size of 5,000 square meters, and thus, in the instant site, local residents were in the state of installing a packing horse without permission and operating a simplified drinking house.

The plaintiff notified that he is the owner of the site of this case and demanded the withdrawal of the packing horse, but he did not comply with the request of us because the packing horse did not comply with the request of us. This large-scale situation led to the first order of November, 199, which led to the report to the police at the end of the physical match with the packing horse where 4-5 employees of the plaintiff and 5 employees of the plaintiff were mobilized to the poor and the poor.

Since ○○, I would leave the site after the end of the bend, and in addition, I II and the twoJ have been ordered to work as an on-site manager and have been stationed in and managed at the site in full time so that the outside is not likely to use the site without permission.

○ At the time of acquisition, the surface of the instant site was flat, and later, in order to prevent the original installation of packages, business, and tents, he mobilized sckes, made a scke in order to set up a scke, and installed a scke with a height of 2 meters in height at the scke of the instant site in order to control the entry into and exit from the ground, and installed a scke with a steel net at a height of 2 meters. In addition, when unauthorized entry into and exit from the site, he manufactured a banner to file criminal complaints and compensate for damages, and attached it on the scke, and controlled and managed the entrance of outside persons.

○ and Before installing a pent, commuting to and from the Odong site has been maintained, but after the installation, the container has been installed inside the pent, used the container as a site guard room, and the defective quality can be changed again. In addition, it is difficult to respond alone, and two JJs have also worked on the spot.

As a result of on-site management at least one month during the middle of December, 200, it is determined that the unauthorized Access to the site of this case is completely obstructed, and that there is no need for people to stay and manage it on the site of this case, thereafter, the new compact is installed and managed by installing a system to control the external access by means of unmanned, and the site of this case was closed on December 20, 206 at the site of this case. At the time of steel, the hacks and keyss were cut down in the Nowon-gu, where the external key can be broken down, and the hacks and keyss were cut down in the entrance.

At least one average on April 2008, when working in another site after ○○, the instant site was sold to the Plaintiff and inspected the outside person’s unauthorized inflow or destruction of fences from time to time at the instant site. However, there was no special circumstance in the absence of special circumstances. In the process of managing the building, the key of the end door door door door of March 2008, which began to start the commencement of the construction, transferred to the buyer’s employees and completed the site management of the instant site.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap 10, 11, 13 through 16, 21 (including additional numbers), witness Kim H's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the transfer date

(A) The seller bears income tax. Article 68(1)3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that the date of liquidation of the price for the business year to which gains and losses accrue due to the transfer of assets other than goods shall be the date of the transfer registration, delivery, or use and profit-making of the relevant assets prior to the settlement of the price, and where the relevant assets are delivered or used and profit-making is made by the other party, it shall be the earlier date between the date of transfer registration, delivery, or use and profit-making of the relevant assets. In addition, acquisition tax shall be borne by the purchasing party under the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 1021, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply). According to the Local Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10221, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply), when acquiring objects of taxation, it shall be deemed that the remaining amount has been actually acquired even if the acquisition price was not performed pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Act and other relevant Acts (Article 105(2).

(B) In light of the health stand and the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the transfer date of the instant site as April 3, 2008, which is the date of ownership transfer registration.

① According to the above facts of recognition: (a) the Plaintiff entered into a system security contract with KK Co., Ltd. until March 2008 and paid telephone use fee by March 31, 2008; (b) and (c) II and bothJ stated that the buyer was assigned the key to the site of this case to the buyer by the end of March 2008, considering the fact that the management of the site of this case was carried out by the Plaintiff until March 2008.

② The real estate disposal trust is a trust that transfers ownership to a trustee for the purpose of disposal of real estate and disposes of such real estate to the beneficiary. That is, real estate, the purchaser of which is limited as a large-scale and high-priced real estate, real estate having difficulty in disposal methods or procedures due to its complex disposal, and real estate having difficulty in disposal due to the need for a long-term period of time to settle balance, and that the trustee transfers ownership for the purpose of disposal of such real estate, and requires the trustee to dispose of such real estate. The real estate disposal trust is also divided into “a type disposal trust for disposal of the real estate in full while the trustee disposes of the real estate in full,” and “a type disposal trust for disposal of the real estate in full while performing the title management of such real estate.” This real estate disposal trust is also a trust for disposal of the real estate in full, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff continues to receive the proceeds from the management of the real estate and to deliver the balance to a third party designated by CCC or CCC upon full payment of the purchase price under Article 13(1).

③ Since the purchase price for the instant site on which the remainder exists is an OO won, and the remainder of the sale is an OOO won, the sale price shall be 3.2% of the total purchase price. The sale price was paid on April 3, 2008.

④ On January 31, 2008, when the Plaintiff entered into a contract with CCC, the Plaintiff agreed to submit a document on authorization and permission for the instant transaction and a report on the commencement of construction work under the name of the Plaintiff. This appears to have offered convenience to the buyer to perform construction work even before the payment of the balance in ordinary terms, and the name, such as a building permit, is deemed to have been made in the Plaintiff’s future to guarantee the payment of the balance in sales (if the buyer transfers the transaction price to another without paying the balance in the purchase and sale, then there is a lot of loss for the Plaintiff). The Plaintiff may be deemed to have expressed its intent that the Plaintiff continued to manage the instant transaction price before receiving the balance in sales.

(2) As to the commencement

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff reported the commencement of construction under his own name, but the actual commencement of construction is recognized by CCC.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the commencement by another person cannot be viewed as the commencement by the plaintiff, and it cannot be viewed as the land for business on the ground of holding it for sale purposes.

① The purpose of taxation and history of land for non-business: 20% of the previous capital gains tax imposed on an individual; 3.0% of the capital gains tax for non-business purposes is 15% of the total corporate tax; 4.0% of the capital gains tax for non-business purposes as well as 10% of the previous capital gains tax on the land; 5.2% of the capital gains tax for non-business purposes should be applied to the transfer of land within 10% of the previous capital gains tax (including the facilities and structures attached to the building; 20% of the capital gains tax for non-business purposes) and 20% of the capital gains tax for non-business purposes under Article 5-2 of the Corporate Tax Act; 3.5% of the capital gains tax for non-business purposes should be applied to the transfer of land within 10% of the previous capital gains tax for non-business purposes (see Article 55-2 of the Corporate Tax Act for non-business purposes).

Article 92-3, 92-6, and 92-11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, etc. are all deemed to be based on the corporate owner, and are not premised on any other person's act. Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff presents precedents on land excess profit tax, the Land Excess Profit Tax Act (which was repealed by Act No. 5586, Dec. 28, 1998) provides that the land excess profit acquired by the owner may be determined for the purpose of increasing the market price of idle soil due to various development projects and other socioeconomic factors such as increase in land excess profit by recovering taxes, thereby contributing to the equity of tax burden, stability of land price and the efficient use of land, and for the purpose of interpreting the Corporate Tax Act (Article 1), the purpose of interpreting the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, which is only the land excess profit due to the increase in land price, can not be viewed to be the same as the purpose of interpreting the Corporate Tax Act or other person's land excess profit.

(3) As to procedural illegality

In a case where a tax authority recognized the grounds for objection to a tax disposition as justifiable in the course of the appeal procedure, and accordingly, took necessary measures accordingly, it cannot reverse the objection procedure and reverse the previous disposition without any justifiable grounds in light of the purport of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which recognizes the method of correction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18161, Jun. 24, 2010).

However, considering the fact that the refund disposition prior to the instant disposition was not taken during the appeal procedure, the administrative agency’s re-disposition is consistent with the rule of law in the event of an error in the administrative agency’s disposition, and that there is no need to protect the Plaintiff’s interest by the wrongful disposition of the administrative agency, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition excessively infringes on the Plaintiff’s right as a taxpayer or is procedural error.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Therefore, the date of acquisition of the large city of this case is October 19, 2006, and the date of transfer is April 3, 2008, the date of registration of ownership transfer, and disposed of without being publicly announced. As such, the Plaintiff owned land for non-business for a period exceeding 20/100 of the ownership period of less than three years (Article 92-3 subparag. 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate by deeming the site of this case as the land for non-business use. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.