Whether the act of constructing a building on the river site to be donated to the Si and the person who has obtained the right to use the building can be seen as sub-lease.

If a building, which is a facility, was constructed in a river site, contributed to the city and obtained the right to use the building, it is reasonable to view that the cost of the building used for the construction of the facility is a kind of consideration in obtaining the above right to use the building. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the lease to another by the right to use the building as sub-lease in accordance with the income standard

Article 1 of the Corporate Tax Act

Attorney Kang Han-sung, Inc., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The summary of the litigation performers, Kim Jong-sik, Hong-hee, Sung-young, Kim Jong-chul, and the terms and conditions of the Director of the Central and Busan District Office;

Daegu High Court Decision 76Gu69 delivered on May 29, 1979

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff on corporate tax and Class A earned income tax shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The appeal on the business tax shall be dismissed.

The costs of an appeal concerning the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In light of the records, the plaintiff can find out that the disposition of the defendant, which calculated the tax base of the business tax and the corporate tax by estimation in accordance with the current business tax and corporate tax-related regulations, is just and acceptable, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

According to the records, it is clear that the plaintiff asserted that the non-party 1 (representative director of the plaintiff company) should comply with the 35% of the "building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Building Construction with the non-party 1 (the representative director of the plaintiff company) made contributions to his personal property and made contributions to the city of Busan to grant the right to use the building for 20 years in lieu of the above contribution, and the plaintiff is running the rental business by taking over the right to use the building from the above non-party (refer to the legal brief of No. 193 of the record) as supporting the above (refer to the legal brief of No. 1, No. 210,15 of the evidence No. 7 and the non-party 2's testimony, the court below determined that the plaintiff company constructed commercial building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building for 20 years from Busan City from Busan City to 200 years and sub-lease building building building building building building rental business.

However, in comparison with the records of the court below's used evidence, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff company installed a facility in the above river site and donated it in Busan. On the other hand, without rejecting the evidence consistent with the plaintiff's argument as seen above, it was just a misunderstanding of the facts and did not determine whether the plaintiff's assertion was sub-lease, that is, the sub-lease of the plaintiff's claim, that is, the non-party 1 paid the price for the right to use that he received from Busan City, and the fact of acquisition of the right to use that was acquired from Busan was recognized as a sub-lease in accordance with the standard income ratio table.

In addition, if the plaintiff constructed the main building which is a facility in the river site and donated it to Busan and acquired the right to use it, it is reasonable to view that the cost of the contribution required for the construction of the facility is a kind of quid pro quo in obtaining the right to use the building. Therefore, it is reasonable to interpret the act of leasing the building to another by the right to use the building as sub-lease in light of social norms.

Therefore, the original city should be seen as a misunderstanding of the legal principles on the sub-lease, and its illegality affected the calculation of the principal corporate tax and the Class A earned income tax. Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below is not reversed, and in calculating the business tax, there is no difference in the sub-lease or sub-lease under the above income standard rate table, and the appeal against this is without merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to corporate tax and Class A earned income tax shall be reversed, and the appeal on the business tax shall be dismissed as without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit as to the portion shall be borne by the plaintiff as the losing party. It is so decided as per

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)