Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-71458 ( December 06, 2016)

The self-Governing farmland reduction and exemption provisions shall not apply to the Plaintiff, a non-profit domestic corporation, and the farmland shall not be deemed directly used for proper purpose business.

(As in the judgment of the first instance court, it is intended to calculate the tax base return for assets transfer income of non-profit domestic corporations by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 92 of the Income Tax Act, which is intended to simplify tax payment procedures and induce early bona fide return, and such corporate tax does not constitute capital gains tax imposed on an individual, and it is not applicable only to individuals.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 62-2 of the Corporate Tax Act

2016Nu78693 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax, etc.

AAAAAAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap71458 Decided December 6, 2016

July 11, 2017

July 25, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 549,80,984,000 on February 2, 2015 exceeds KRW 549,803,067 among the imposition disposition of KRW 644,231,067 against the Plaintiff on February 2, 2009 and the special rural development tax of KRW 20,984,00 shall

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment of the court of first instance as to the assertion added by the court of first instance as to the argument added by the court of first instance pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the

〇 제1심 판결서 7쪽 2행 ' 때문이다' 다음에 아래 내용을 추가한다.

[On the other hand, it is because Article 77 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act does not limit the application of capital gains tax reduction or exemption to residents for land, etc. for public services under Article 77 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and Article 72 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010) provides for allowing application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption for land for public services of non-profit domestic corporations.]

〇 제1심 판결서 9쪽 8행 아래에 다음 내용을 추가한다.

(6) A project operator who intends to be eligible for the tax reduction or exemption under paragraph (1) 1 or 2 shall file an application for such reduction or exemption, as prescribed by Presidential Decree.

【former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22037, Feb. 18, 2010)】

Article 72 (Reduction or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax on Land, etc. for Public Works Projects)

(6) Any person who intends to apply for reduction or exemption under Article 77 (6) of the Act shall submit a tax base return for the taxable year to which the date of transfer of the relevant land, etc. belongs (including a preliminary return, in cases of a resident and a non-profit domestic corporation which has made a preliminary return under Article 62-2 (7) of the Corporate Tax Act) accompanied by documents verifying that he/she has been accommodated in an application for tax reduction or exemption prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance (in cases of a

○ At the bottom of the 10th judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

[former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22951, Jun. 3, 2011)]

Article 2 (Scope of Profit-Making Business)

(2) The term "those prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 3 (3) 5 of the Act means those used directly for a proper purpose business (excluding profit-making business under paragraph (1)) prescribed by statutes or the articles of incorporation for at least three consecutive years as of the date of disposal of the relevant fixed assets. In such cases, where incidental profits, such as admission fees and admission fees, for the maintenance, management, etc. of the relevant fixed assets,

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the farmland in this case was used by the plaintiff for the purpose of meeting the expenses necessary for the execution of the company's company's company or its related matters for several hundred years, it constitutes "fixed assets directly used for the purpose business" under Article 3 (3) 5 of the former Corporate Tax Act, income arising from the disposition of the farmland in this case is not included in taxable income of corporate tax. Accordingly, the disposition of this case which imposed corporate tax on the non-taxable income is unlawful.

B. Determination

Article 3(3)5 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22951, Jun. 3, 2011) provides that the income generated from the disposal of fixed assets used directly for the proper purpose business, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree, shall be excluded from the subject of corporate tax, and Article 2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22951, Jun. 3, 201) provides that fixed assets used directly for the proper purpose business excluded from the subject of corporate

In full view of the contents of evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, 11, and 12 (including family numbers) and the purport of the entire argument in the trial of the Plaintiff’s representative, the Plaintiff’s articles of incorporation provides that the purpose of the Plaintiff shall be to worship the ancestor and to have honor and responsibility for cultivating the species among his relatives. The Plaintiff’s religious ground CCC has cultivated be the fact that from around 1970 to the farmland of this case. Even according to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff’s religious ground is naturally formed by descendants of the joint ancestor and is an agriculture with the purpose of protecting the graves of the ancestor and the sprinking company, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the farmland of this case is directly used for the proper purpose business of the Plaintiff. Even if CCC for the Plaintiff’s religious ground cultivated the farmland of this case as the above farmland of this case and sold the products of this case for the proper purpose business of the clan, it is nothing more than the Plaintiff’s assertion that it indirectly contributed to the execution of the above business of the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.