Income and corporate tax imposed on medical colleges attached to medical colleges established by a school juristic person.

Income earned from medical schools affiliated with medical schools established by a school juristic person shall be deemed to be the maintenance of the school which is its own purpose for the management purpose, so it cannot be subject to corporate tax.

Article 1(1) of the Corporate Tax Act

School of Annual Generation for School Foundation

Head of Seodaemun Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 69Gu67 delivered on June 16, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) On the first ground for appeal

In light of the provisions of Article 5 and Article 10 (1) 6 of the Private School Act, it is reasonable to consider that the management of a medical school affiliated with a medical college established by a school juristic person (Article 32 of the Civil Act) is the maintenance of a school for the proper purpose of the school.

In addition, Article 5 (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act (Act No. 823 of Dec. 8, 1961) and Article 1 (1) of the current Corporate Tax Act, Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 6 of the Private School Act are interpreted to mean the medical business for the purpose of profit-making which is to appropriate funds for school management, and the medical business for the prior provisions of the new and new Corporate Tax Act refers to the medical business for the purpose of profit-making, and it is reasonable to interpret that the income generated by the maintenance of affiliated hospitals of medical colleges prior to the conclusion that it does not fall under each subparagraph of Article 1 (1) 4 of the previous and new Act.

In this case, the court below held that the defendant's disposition, which issued the law on the profits earned by the annexed hospital operated by the plaintiff corporation in this case, is just, and the plaintiff's claim for revocation is not correct, and there is no violation of the Corporate Tax Act and there is no error in the interpretation of the law. The argument is without merit that the court below's disposition against the plaintiff's member is inconsistent with the judgment of the original court, which affected the law on the profits earned by the annexed hospital in this case.

(2) On the second ground for appeal:

However, it is difficult to see that the court below's decision did not err because the theory of lawsuit, which is based on the premise that this case's profit is subject to taxation under the Corporate Tax Act, is not erroneous because the court below should be aware of it, and that there is no error in the theory of lawsuit in the court below's decision.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)