[1] Whether the restriction on use under Article 18(4)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act constitutes a case where an administrative agency uniformly controls a building permit as part of an administrative action (affirmative)

[2] Criteria for determining whether the use of real estate under Article 18 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act is prohibited or restricted by the Act

[1] Article 18 (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1968 of March 12, 1994) provides that "real estate, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes after the acquisition of the pertinent real estate, and for which three years have not passed from the date of prohibition or restriction of its use" as one of the cases where the use of the pertinent real estate is not considered as non-business real estate. As a part of administrative action, even if the administrative agency uniformly controls the construction permission, and the use of the land is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, it shall be included in the case where the use of the land is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, and Article 18 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the

[2] Article 18 (4) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1968 of March 12, 1994) provides that "after the acquisition of the pertinent real estate, the use of the pertinent real estate shall be prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes, so there is no room to apply if the use has already been prohibited or restricted under the provisions of the Act and subordinate statutes before the acquisition. Thus, whether the use of the pertinent real estate is prohibited or restricted under the Act and subordinate statutes shall, in principle, be determined in comparison with the specific purpose at

[1] Article 18-3(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 43-2(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 18(3), (4)1, and 17 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1968 of March 12, 1994) / [2] Article 18-3(1)1 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 43-2(1) and (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 18(4)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of March 12, 1994)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2503 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 127), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu1026 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2426), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu7918 delivered on June 11, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2242) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1506 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong192, 2307), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu4172 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1499)

1. The term “the term “the term” means “the term” means “the term “the term” means “the term.

The director of the tax office of distribution (Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Gu3069 delivered on July 10, 1997

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. 원심은, 토목건축공사업 등을 목적사업으로 하는 법인인 원고는 1989. 5. 11. 관광호텔을 신축할 목적으로 한강 중지도에 위치한 이 사건 토지를 취득하였는데, 이 사건 토지는 1983. 2. 4. 서울특별시고시 제62호로 도시계획시설인 유원지로 결정되어 있고, 그 세부시설로는 운동시설인 수영장과 스포츠센터, 편의시설인 유람선 터미널과 민예품점 등이 결정되어 있는 사실, 한편 서울특별시장은 구 건축법 제44조에 의한 건설부장관의 지시에 따라 1990. 5. 15. 위락시설, 숙박시설 및 판매시설 등 상업용 건물에 대한 건축허가제한 조치를 한 사실을 인정한 다음, 원고가 이 사건 토지 위에 신축하려 한 관광호텔이나 유원지 세부시설로 결정되어 있는 운동시설 등은 모두 위 건축허가제한 조치의 대상에 해당하므로 위 건축허가제한 조치는 구 법인세법시행규칙(1990. 10. 22. 재무부령 제1835호로 개정되어 1994. 3. 12. 재무부령 제1968호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제18조 제4항 제1호 규정에 정한 '법령의 규정에 의한 사용의 금지 또는 제한'에 해당되고, 따라서 이 사건 부동산은 위 시행규칙 규정에 의하여 제한일로부터 3년이 경과되지 아니한 1993. 5. 14.까지는 비업무용 부동산이 아니라고 판단하는 한편, 이 사건 토지는 위 유원지 세부시설결정으로 인하여 원고의 취득 전에 이미 취득 목적인 관광호텔 신축이 불가능하여 위 건축허가제한 조치는 '취득 후' 법령의 규정에 의한 사용의 금지 또는 제한에 해당하지 아니하므로 위 시행규칙 규정이 적용되지 아니한다는 피고의 주장에 대하여는, 도시계획법령 등 관계규정에 의하면, 유원지에 설치할 시설기준에 숙박시설이 포함되어 있고, 유원지 세부시설 결정이나 변경 결정은 관계 지방의회나 중앙도시계획위원회의 의결을 거치지 아니하여도 되는 경미한 사항의 변경에 해당하며, 또한 서울특별시가 1988. 2. 연구기관으로부터 보고받은 한강연안종합정비계획에 중지도지구의 유치시설로 호텔이 포함되어 있는 점에 비추어 이 사건 토지는 원고 취득 당시 유원지 세부시설의 변경결정을 통하여 관광호텔을 신축하는 것이 가능한 것으로 보이므로, 취득 전에 법령상의 사용 금지·제한이 있었다고 할 수 없고, 설사 관광호텔을 신축하는 것이 불가능하였다고 하더라도 당초 유원지 세부시설결정에 따라 유원지시설을 건축하는 것은 원고의 목적사업 범위에 해당하므로, 위 유원지 세부시설 결정이 취득 전의 법령상의 사용 금지·제한이 아니라 하여 이를 배척하였다.

2. Article 18(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the above Act provides that "real estate, the use of which is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes after the acquisition of the pertinent real estate, and for which three years have not passed since its use was prohibited or restricted by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes," as one of the cases where the said real estate is not deemed non-business property as non-business property. As a part of an administrative action, the administrative agency uniformly controls the construction permission, and the use of land is prohibited or restricted by the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes as part of the administrative action, the court below's determination that the above restriction measure is included in "the prohibition or restriction of use under the provisions of Acts and subordinate statutes" under the above provision is just (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu2503, Nov. 22, 1994) and Article 18(4) of the above Enforcement Rule of the above Act separately provides the land, the construction of which cannot be constructed due to the restriction of the construction permission under the Building Act under subparagraph 17, and therefore, it does not err in the grounds for appeal.

3. However, since Article 18(4)1 of the above Enforcement Rule requires the real estate prohibited or restricted by the law after acquiring the pertinent real estate, if the use of the pertinent land was already prohibited or restricted by the law before the Plaintiff’s acquisition, there is no room to apply it. Thus, as a matter of principle, whether the pertinent land was prohibited or restricted by the law shall be determined in comparison with the principal business at the time of the acquisition of the land, and all of the corporate purpose businesses do not constitute the judgment criteria (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu1506, Jun. 23, 1992).

In this case, since the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case for the purpose of constructing a tourist hotel, the issue of whether the decision on detailed facilities of the above amusement park constitutes a prohibition or restriction on the use of a tourist hotel on the land of this case depends on whether the construction of a new tourist hotel is possible under the law, and even according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the decision on detailed facilities of the above amusement park does not include a tourist hotel, but also does not include a tourist hotel for the subsequent modification on April 10, 1996, and if it is intended to install urban planning facilities such as a tourist hotel within the urban planning district under the Urban Planning Act, which was enforced at the time of the acquisition of the land of this case, it can only be done as an urban planning. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the land of this case shall be deemed to have

In addition, the contents of the relevant provisions, such as the Urban Planning Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Korea Coastal Maintenance Plan cited by the court below alone cannot be readily concluded that the above detailed facility decision should be included in the tourist hotel in reality, and as seen earlier, since the above detailed facility decision was not modified as above, it cannot be said that there was no prohibition or restriction on the use of the land in the law at the time of acquiring the land in this case on the sole basis

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the land of this case constitutes a case where the use of such land is prohibited or restricted under the statutory provisions, thereby having committed an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal on this point

4. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)