Whether land used as container freeboard is real estate for non-business use.

Since the land used as container gate was closed, and the sale procedure for the land of this case was leased to another company for more than ten years after the closure of the container gate, and there is no circumstance that the plaintiff tried to use the land of this case for its business during the above period, it is difficult to view that the land of this case is not directly related to the plaintiff's business and is directly used for the plaintiff's business.

The contents of the judgment are the same as the attachment.

2015Guhap50726 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AA

O Head of tax office

on 21, 2015

on October 04, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s portion exceeding KRW 1,225,586,780 out of corporate tax of 1,089,459,597 of the business year 2006 that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff on November 7, 2011; and the portion exceeding KRW 1,654,654,935,080 out of KRW 1,239,96,620 of corporate tax of 207; and the portion exceeding KRW 165,74,903 out of corporate tax of 516,301,90 of KRW 165,74,903 of the business year 2008; and KRW 64,760,312 of corporate tax of 209.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is engaging in freight forwarding, loading and unloading of ports, and express bus business as its main business.

B. From January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2008, the Plaintiff leased a total of 15,599 square meters of o-o-o-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-type 00,000 square meters of 18,843 square meters of o-O-O-O-O-O-type 00,566 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff, and from July 1, 2008 to July 31, 201, the Plaintiff leased a total of 18,843 square meters of o-O-O-O-O-type 14,277 square meters of 18,56 square meters of 18,56 square meters of o-O-type 244 square meters of 17,521 square meters of o-O-O-type 244 square meters of hereinafter referred to as “the instant land”).

C. On November 7, 2011, the Defendant deemed the instant land lease as the leased assets unrelated to the business, and excluded the interest paid on the land from deductible expenses, and imposed corporate tax and additional tax on the Plaintiff as follows (hereinafter “instant disposition”); and the following total amount includes the excessive payment of executive wages and other items, such as expenses, etc.

D. On January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on October 27, 2014 (based on recognition) (based on recognition), and written evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 9 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply);

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant land constitutes a building on the instant land, which constitutes a container package. The instant land is a legal entity.

The term "land without a building" in the main sentence of Article 26 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Tax-Related Act shall not apply.

2) Even if container camping does not fall under a building, the Plaintiff leased the land directly used for the business of a corporation, such as the land annexed to the factory and building, because the Plaintiff was engaged in the maritime cargo transport business, selective distribution business, warehouse business, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff constitutes “a case where the land directly used for the business of a corporation, such as the land annexed to the factory and building, is leased”

3) Therefore, the instant disposition was unlawful on a different premise, since the cost disbursed in relation to the instant land is not subject to non-deductible expenses.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same)

Article 27 subparag. 1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 49(1)1 (a) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provide that “The expenses incurred by the acquisition and management of real estate deemed not directly related to the business of the juristic person concerned, which is not directly used for the business of the juristic person, shall not be included in the calculation of losses.” Meanwhile, Article 26(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provides that the lease of land without a building shall be deemed real estate not directly used for the business of the juristic person, but the lease of the land directly used for the business of the juristic person, such as factories and buildings, is excluded from the case of leasing the land without a building. According to the above provision, even if the instant land is not deemed a real estate not directly used for the business of the juristic person, if it is recognized that it was not directly related to the business of the

2) In addition to the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 3:

The following facts may be recognized:

① On April 14, 1998, the Plaintiff, including the instant land, established a bonded warehouse in the Dongo-O 2,192 square meters Doo-O 2,192.6 square meters, and decided to sell the said land in accordance with the plan to promote the structural reform of financial and corporate entities determined by the Government Economic Measures Coordination Council on April 14, 1998. On January 31, 199, the Plaintiff reported the closure of the bonded warehouse.

② The Plaintiff continued to sell the instant land and the land above 330-226 and entered into an actual sales contract for the said land. However, upon the cancellation, the Plaintiff leased the said land from November 1, 199 to October 31, 200 to 31, 200. After that, the Plaintiff leased the said land to Doo (container Manufacturing Business) Co., Ltd. for the Plaintiff’s selective distribution business. After that, the Plaintiff was to use the land and the buildings above 330-226 land and the buildings above for the Plaintiff’s selective distribution business. From November 1, 2001 to July 31, 201, the instant land was leased to Dooo LS (Deposition Storage Business).

3) As seen above, the Plaintiff closed down a bonded storage place operated on the instant land, and subsequently proceeds from the sale of the instant land, and leased the instant land to another company for at least ten years. Moreover, there is no circumstance that the Plaintiff intended to use the instant land for its business during the said period. Considering such circumstances, the instant land is not directly related to the Plaintiff’s business, nor is it difficult to view it as the land directly used for the Plaintiff’s business. The Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.