Revocation of imposition of corporate tax

In determining whether or not the standard area of factory location exceeds the standard area of factory location, the case holding that the corporate tax of this case is improper by determining whether or not to be determined based on urban planning use at the time of conclusion of a sales contract or based on the use at the time of transfer of ownership (general residential area) as at the time of conclusion of a sales contract;

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing corporate tax of KRW 128,817,430 against the Plaintiff on June 16, 1995 is revoked. 2. The litigation cost is assessed against the Defendant.

1. 인정되는 사실관계(이 사건 부과처분의 경위 등) 아래의 사실은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없거나, 갑제1 내지 6호증, 을제3 내지 12호증의 기재와 당원의 ㅇㅇ시장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면 이를 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없다.

가. 원고는 건축자재, 철구조물 등의 제조 및 판매업을 사업목적으로한 회사로서, ㅇㅇ시ㅇㅇ구 ㅇㅇ동 232의 2 대 8,677㎡(이하 이 사건 대지라 한다) 중 8,677분의 7,024.1 지분과 그 지상 건물 1,168.486㎡를 소유하면서 이를 공장부지 및 건물로 사용하여 왔는데, 원고가 사업을 확장하면서 공장을 증축하려 하였으나 위 토지가 도시계획상 자연녹지로 지정되어 있어 공장증축이 불가능하게 되자 공장을 충남 논산시 연무읍 고내리 1096의 6 대 14,469㎡로 이전하기로 하였다.

나. 원고는 위 공장이전계획에 따라 1991. 3. 22. 위 기존공장의 대지 및 건물을 소외 ㅇㅇ주식회사에게 매도하고 1991. 7. 1. 중도금을 수령하였으며 1993. 1. 21. 위 소외회사 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 마쳐준 다음, 매매잔금은 같은 달 26. 수령하였다.

다. 한편 이 사건 대지는 그 일대가 토지구획정리사업지구에 포함되면서 1991. 7. 6. ㅇㅇ시장에 의하여 도시계획상 자연녹지지역에서 일반거주지역으로 용도지역이 변경되었다.

D. On June 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for tax exemption under Article 42(2) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993; hereinafter the same) that provides for the exemption of capital gains tax or special surtax on capital gains accruing from the relocation of a factory in a large city to a provincial area. However, the Defendant imposed corporate tax exemption on the above portion of the portion exceeding 3,351.684 square meters (7,024.1 - 3,672.416) out of the Plaintiff’s share in the site of this case on the ground that the application of Article 42 of the above Act was not excluded pursuant to Article 36(6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13897 of May 27, 1993; hereinafter the same).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that, even if the Plaintiff sold the instant site to Nonparty Company and received intermediate payments, the instant site was a natural green belt under urban planning, so it is unreasonable to impose special surtax on the Plaintiff on the ground that there was any part exceeding the standard area for factory location among the instant site pursuant to the relevant provisions of the former Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act, which requires the exclusion of natural green belt from calculating the standard area for factory location. After that, on July 6, 1991, before the transfer of ownership transfer registration period, the portion exceeding the standard area for factory location was changed to a general residential area under urban planning of the instant site. In such a case, whether there was any portion exceeding the standard area for factory location to which exemption from special surtax is excluded should be determined on the basis of the date of sale of land, and even if it was not determined on the basis of the date of transfer registration, it is unreasonable to impose special surtax on the ground that the Plaintiff had any portion exceeding

(2) On this issue, the defendant asserts that the standard time to determine whether the special surtax exemption requirements falls under the transfer date, namely, the date of the settlement of price, but if the registration of ownership transfer was made prior to the settlement of price, it shall be determined on the basis of the date of the registration of transfer of ownership. Therefore, the defendant's disposition imposing special surtax on the excess portion is legitimate, by deciding whether the site

B. Relevant statutes

(1) Article 42 (2) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act: Any income accruing from the transfer of the factory site and buildings by a national who operates a business with factory facilities in a large city to relocate the factory to a provincial area shall be exempted from the transfer income tax or special surtax under the conditions as prescribed

(2) Article 36 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act: Article 42 of the Act shall not apply to the portion exceeding the standard area for factory sites as provided by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy where a site for an old factory

(3) Article 13-2 subparagraph 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1886 of June 22, 1992): The term “the standard area for factory sites as determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy” under Article 36(6) of the Decree means the area falling under each of the following subparagraphs:

(4) Article 84-4 (3) 6 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13660 of Jun. 11, 192): The land annexed to the factory building which exceeds the standard area for factory location as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

(5) Article 46-5 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Local Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs No. 452 on December 31, 1986): The standard area for factory sites determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Home Affairs under Article 84-4(3)6 of the Decree refers to the standard area for factory sites in attached Table 4.

(6) Attached Table 4 of the above Enforcement Rule: The basic area of factory sites shall exclude the area of green areas, runways, railroad tracks, etc. in urban planning.

C. Determination

(1) Ultimately, in this case, the issue between the plaintiff and the defendant is whether the land of this case, which is the plaintiff's existing factory site, exceeds the standard area for factory location under Article 36 (6) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, should be determined on the basis of urban planning (natural green belt) at the time of conclusion of sales contract or on the basis of ownership transfer registration (general residential area).

(2) 살피건대, 구 조세감면규제법시행령 제36조 제6항이 공장입지기준면적을 초과하는 부분에 대하여 특별부가세의 면제 규정(구 조세감면규제법 제42조 제2항)을 배제하도록 하고 있는 취지가 공장입지기준면적을 초과하는 과다한 공장부지를 보유한 기업에게 그 기준면적 초과분 부지를 양도함으로써 발생하는 소득에 대하여서까지 면세하는 것은 기업의 투기적 공장부지 과다보유행위를 유발하여 토지의 효율적인 이용을 해할 우려가 있으므로 이를 방지하려는 데에 있는 점, 이 사건의 경우 앞에서 인정한 바와 같이 원고가 이 사건 대지를 매도하고 중도금을 수령할 당시만 하더라도 용도지역이 자연녹지로 지정되어 있어서 공장입지기준면적을 초과하는 부분이 없었는데, 그 후 그 일대가 택지로 개발되기 시작하면서 토지구획정리사업지구에 포함되어 원고의 의사나 귀책사유와는 상관없이 ㅇㅇ시장에 의하여 일반주거지역으로 변경됨에 따라 공장입지기준면적을 초과하는 부분에 생기게 된 것이고, 이러한 용도지역 변경 당시 원고는 이미 이 사건 대지를 매도하고 중도금까지 수령한 상태여서 용도 변경에 따른 지가 상승 등의 투기적 이익을 원고가 추가로 얻게된 것도 아닌 점 등을 고려하면, 이 사건 대지가 공장입지기준면적을 초과하는지 여부는 매매계약체결시를 기준으로 판정함으로써 이 사건 대지의 양도로 인하여 발생하는 소득에 대하여 법인세(특별부가세)를 부과하지 않는 것이 타당하다 할 것이다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the disposition of imposition of corporate tax stated in the order is unlawful, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking its revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.