Whether alternative repair costs or electric facility repair costs constitute capital expenditures;

If the contents of the building repair project are replaced by a new different day, and it is a repair for restoring the original state at the time of construction by newly replacing the worn-out electric facilities and for fully performing the functions of external walls protection or electric facilities, it cannot be deemed as repair extending the lifespan of the building or increasing the value of the fixed assets due to the alteration or improvement of the use of the building. Therefore, the replacement repair cost or electric facility repair cost is not a capital expenditure but a beneficial expenditure.

Article 56 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 33 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act

Square, Inc.

Head of the Tax Office;

Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu102 Decided June 29, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the outer walls and electric facilities parts of the building of this case were damaged or worn out as the reasons stated in its reasoning, as well as the order to improve the market environment of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government at the time of the repair of electric facilities and the replacement of the outer walls of this case and the replacement of the replacement of the outer walls of this case and the repair of electric facilities at the time of the construction of this case were confirmed based on the confirmation, and that the replacement of the outer walls of this case or the repair of electric facilities did not perform the original functions and roles at the time of the construction because the outer walls of this case and the replacement of the replacement of the outer walls of this case or the repair of electric facilities did not perform all the original functions and functions at the time of the construction because the new installation of the worn-out electric facilities and the alteration of the purpose of use or improvement of the building cannot be deemed to be repair or to increase the real value of the fixed assets, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the above depreciation or repair is illegal under the premise that it constitutes capital expenditure of this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to capital expenditures or an incomplete hearing. There is no reason to argue.

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 Man-hee (Presiding Justice)