A. Article 18-3(1)3 and (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 43-2(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195, Dec. 31, 1990); Article 18(3)6 and 18(5)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1818, Apr. 4, 1990); the scope of non-business real estate and the method of calculating the value thereof

(b) The case holding that slots, retaining walls, and swimming pools in the skiing ground fall under non-business real estate;

A. Article 18-3(1)3 and (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990); Article 43-2(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 190); Article 18(3)6 and 18(5)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1818 of Apr. 4, 1990), “non-business real estate” includes all facilities that can be seen as land and its ground fixtures. The appraisal of its value shall be based on the book value separately on the land pursuant to Article 18(5)1 of the above Enforcement Rule, and shall be added to the land value; each facility may be traded or taxable independently.

B. The case holding that ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground ski ground

Articles 18-3 (1) 3 and 18-3 (3) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990), Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 1990), Articles 18 (3) 6 and 18 (5) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy of Apr. 4, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1643 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3328)

United Kingdom Co., Ltd.

Head of Central Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu16930 delivered on April 8, 1992

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the following facts comprehensively adopted by the court below that the plaintiff engaged in the business of manufacturing chemical goods as its main business and engaged in a general recreation business (ski ground) on December 1, 1987. The plaintiff was a company which was engaged in a general recreation business (ski ground) by combining Alpet Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 323,016 square meters (ski ground) located in Gangwon-do, for four parcels of land and 323,016 square meters (ski ground, 92,308 square meters owned by the plaintiff, 213,365 square meters, and 17,343 square meters) and operated a ski ground on the premise that the above ski ground or the above ski ground is not an independent facility for non-business use, and thus, the defendant's above ski ground or ski ground is not an independent facility for non-business use of the above ski ground.

2. Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree among interest on loans paid by a corporation which owns real estate not directly related to the business of the corporation in each business year shall not be included in deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the income amount of the relevant business year, and Article 43-2 (3) of the same Act and Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 190) provides that the scope of non-business real estate shall be delegated to the Enforcement Decree and the Enforcement Rule of the same Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 1818 of Apr. 4, 1990) provides that the real estate value of the corporation's real estate for non-business purposes shall be reduced to more than 10/100 of the total value of the real estate or non-business property value of the corporation.

As above, each of the above provisions regulates the whole of non-business real estate including non-business land, and examining the legislative intent of the above provisions together, the "real estate for non-business use" under each of the above provisions includes all of the facilities that can be seen as the land and its fixtures on the ground, and the appraisal of the value shall be assessed separately from the land pursuant to the provisions of Article 18 (5) 1 of the above Enforcement Rule and shall be added to the land value, and there is no relation with whether each of the above facilities can be traded or taxable independently.

According to the records, since the facilities of this case are land fixtures and real estate for non-business use under the above Acts and subordinate statutes, the interest paid on the loan amount equivalent to the appraised value shall not be included in the loss in calculating the income amount of the pertinent business year.

In addition, according to the records, the tax amount of this case is the tax amount calculated based on the aggregate value of the buildings, such as skiing loan, except slves, retaining walls, and swimming pool in the skiing ground of this case as decided by the court below. Thus, the court below's revocation of the disposition of this case by deeming the whole of the disposition of this case to be illegal without any determination on the part is erroneous in this regard.

3. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the appraisal of the value of real estate for non-business use as defined in each of the above statutes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.