logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1997. 10. 14. 선고 97누4647 판결
[소득세부과처분취소][공1997.11.15.(46),3523]
Main Issues

The meaning of "a person who starts up and operates a small and medium enterprise in an agricultural or fishing village" under Article 15 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, and whether a person who has been engaged in quarrying business before 191 is included in the subject(negative)

Summary of Judgment

The term "business start-up" in Article 15 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993) which is the object of exemption from income tax refers to newly starting a business to establish a small or medium enterprise, i.e., newly starting a business, if a small or medium enterprise is an individual, the date of issuing a business registration certificate under the Value-Added Tax Act. In addition, small or medium enterprises in agricultural and fishing villages operate a manufacturing business and mining business. In accordance with the income tax law and the Korea Standard Industrial Classification Table, quarrying business is not included in the scope of mining before December 31, 1990, but included in the scope of mining from January 1, 1991. In full view of this, in the case of "Quarrying business" among those who start-up and operate a small or medium enterprise in an agricultural and fishing village area, it is excluded from the object of exemption from the establishment of a new one only after January 1, 1991.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 2 and 25(1) of the former Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of Mar. 6, 1993); Article 15(1) and (3) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993); Article 20(1)2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4281 of Dec. 31, 1990; see current Article 19(1)3); Article 20(1)2 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803 of Dec. 22, 1994; see current Article 19(1)3); Article 1 of the Addenda of the former Tax Reduction and Exemption Act; Article 15(1) and (3) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13141 of Dec. 13, 194; see current Article 130 subparag. 14)

Reference Cases

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff, Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant, Appellee

Permanent Residence of Head of Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 96Gu5859 delivered on February 14, 1997

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the former Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of Mar. 6, 1993), for the founders of small and medium enterprises in agricultural and fishing villages, income tax, etc. may be reduced or exempted as prescribed by the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (Article 25(1)). Accordingly, the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993) provides that for the persons who operate small and medium enterprises in agricultural and fishing villages falling under Article 25(1) of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993), for the taxable year to which the date of establishment belongs and for the taxable year to which the date of establishment belongs, the total amount of income tax or corporate tax on the income accruing from the relevant business belongs, and for the taxable year that ends within two years thereafter, the amount equivalent to 50/100 of income tax or corporate

Meanwhile, the term "new establishment" means the establishment of a small or medium enterprise [Article 12-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Support for Small or Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (amended by Act No. 4541 of March 6, 1993), i.e., the newly established commencement of a business], and 'Article 2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13870 of March 6, 1993), 'the date of issuance of a business registration certificate' if a small or medium start-up enterprise is an individual, 'the date of issuance of a business registration certificate' under the Value-Added Tax Act' [Article 12-1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14084 of December 31, 1993), Article 12-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 10932, Feb. 19, 1992).

In full view of the provisions of the relevant laws and regulations, in the case of "Quarrying business" among those who start up and operate a small and medium enterprise in a rural area subject to exemption from income tax under Article 15(1) of the above Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act, it is reasonable to view that only a new establishment and operation after January 1, 191 is subject to exemption under the above Act, and quarrying business established and operated in king is excluded from such exemption.

According to the judgment of the court below and the records, the plaintiff can be found to have started a business after being registered as a quarrying company on November 24, 1990, which is the ○○ building industry, in forest and field ( Address 1 omitted) located in the area of farming and fishing villages. Thus, the plaintiff is a quarrying business operator that started a business before January 1, 1991, and cannot be deemed to be a small and medium enterprise subject to exemption from income tax under Article 15 (1) of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act. The judgment of the court below to this purport is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles, such as the theory of tenant.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-대구고등법원 1997.2.14.선고 96구5859
본문참조조문