(a) Whether or not it may be considered that the real estate transferred for consideration to another person belongs to the business property under Article 5 of the Assets Revaluation Act;

(b) the meaning of “lease” in Article 18(3)11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act;

A. In full view of the purport of Article 5(1) of the Assets Revaluation Act, Articles 17(1) through (3), and 59-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, where a corporation sells real estate such as land and buildings, receives the price in full and transfers real estate to a purchaser with compensation, it shall be deemed that it is transferred to another tax law regardless of the transfer of ownership, and thus, it shall not be deemed that it falls under the business property subject to revaluation under Article 5 of the Assets Revaluation

B. It is reasonable to view that “lease” in Article 18(3)11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act includes not only the case where a lease contract is concluded between the parties, but also the case where a real estate owner has allowed another person to use the real estate and has received the amount of rent continuously from the user, in light of the purpose of the relevant laws and regulations.

(a) Article 5(1) of the Assets Revaluation Act, Articles 17(1), 17(2), 17(3), and 59-2(2) of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 18(3)11 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2768, 2769 decided Feb. 14, 1989 (Gong1989, 409)

Park Planning Co., Ltd.

The director of the tax office

Seoul High Court Decision 94Gu10872 delivered on April 13, 1995

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning the Guro-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) 2,062 square meters is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed, and all costs of appeal as to this part are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the Plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the purpose of market establishment on May 25, 1979, and liquidated the price thereof, but was not registered after the market establishment, the Plaintiff newly constructed one building on the ground and completed registration of ownership transfer on the 1st, 58 stores, 42 stores and 2nds (part of underground, rooftop, 1st and 2nds) under the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not own the land of this case on the 19th anniversary of the total floor area of the above 2,417.19 square meters of the above 19ths of the above 19ths of the 19ths of the 19ths of the 2nds of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 3rds of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 3rds of the 1sts of the 1sts of the 3ths of the 19ths of the land.

Article 5 (1) of the Assets Revaluation Act provides that "any person who operates the business referred to in the following subparagraphs may conduct revaluation of the assets located in Korea as of the revaluation date under the conditions as prescribed by this Act: Provided, That this shall not apply to non-business assets and assets prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That this shall not apply to non-business assets and assets prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Meanwhile, in light of the purport of Articles 17 (1) through (3) and 59-2 (2) of the Corporate Tax Act, where a corporation sells real estate, receives the price in full and transfers the real estate to a purchaser with compensation, it shall be deemed that the real estate is transferred to another tax law regardless of the transfer registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2768, 2769, Feb. 14, 1989). In addition, in light of the purport of Article 18 (3) 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act, if there is no special circumstance that the real owner of the real estate is not the owner of the above real estate.

As determined by the court below, if the plaintiff sold part of a market building to another company and received the price in full, it shall not be deemed as the business assets belonging to the company as stipulated in Article 5 of the Assets Revaluation Act, even if the ownership transfer registration on that part remains in the plaintiff as of the revaluation date. Thus, the court below should have determined whether the share in the land transferred with the store among the land in this case belongs to either of the extent or the scope of the subject of the revaluation of the assets in this case or the effect of the revaluation after the commencement of this study. However, the court below did not err in holding that the land in this case falls under the subject of revaluation on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer remains in the plaintiff's future. In light of the records, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ownership transfer registration on each of the land in this case, which did not constitute the subject of revaluation on the land in this case, and thus did not constitute the subject of revaluation on the land in this case, which did not reach the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to view that it did not fall under Article 18 (1).

2. Meanwhile, the part concerning the first shop of this case is not indicated in the grounds of appeal even after examining the petition of appeal or the grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant litigation performer with respect to the part concerning the first shop of this case. Thus, this part of the grounds of appeal cannot be dismissed.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the land of this case shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal concerning this part shall be assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)