Whether a facility constitutes real estate for non-business purposes

A facility is an object that forms part of the land and is not an independent real estate that can be a separate taxation or transaction object regardless of the land, and therefore does not constitute a real estate that is not directly related to the business of the corporation.

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

1. The disposition of imposition of KRW 5,261,757 of corporate tax of August 2, 1987 against the plaintiff and KRW 947,30 of the defense tax of KRW 134,630,260 of the corporate tax of KRW 1988 and KRW 33,901,527 of the defense tax of KRW 198 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Details of the imposition;

갑 1내지 4호증, 갑 8내지 11호증의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원고는 화섬직물제조업을 주업으로 하면서 1987. 12. 1. 주식회사 ㅇㅇ리조트를 합병하여 종합휴양업(스키장)을 겸업하는 회사로서, ㅇㅇ도 ㅇㅇ군 ㅇㅇ읍 흘리 산 1의 2외 4필지 소재 임야 및 유원지 323,016평방미터(이중 원고소유가 92,308평방미터이고, 국가소유가 213,365평방미터, 고성군 소유가 17,343평방미터이다)에 슬로우프, 옹벽, 수영장등을 설치하여 스키장을 경영하여 온 사실, 피고는 위 슬로우프, 옹벽, 수영장(이하 이사건 시설물이라고 한다)등을 법인세법 제18조의3제1항제3호, 같은법 시행령 제43조의2조5항, 같은법 시행규칙 제18조제3항제6호 (다)목에 의한 비업무용 부동산으로 보아 위 시설물의 장부가액에 상당하는 차입금의 지급이자를 각 사업연도의 소득금액계산상 손금불산입하여 1990. 8. 2. 원고에 대하여 주문기재 이사건 부과처분을 한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있다.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the above disposition grounds and applicable provisions of law, and the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful, since the "non-business real estate under the Corporate Tax Act" refers to the land of independent value and its fixtures, it does not correspond to the facilities of this case, and even if not, it is not owned by the plaintiff, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

Article 18-3 (1) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4282 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that the amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree within the limit of the total amount of assets falling under any of the following subparagraphs from among interest on loans paid by a domestic corporation that holds assets falling under any of the following subparagraphs in each business year shall not be included in deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the income amount of each business year. Article 43-2 (5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 13195 of Dec. 31, 1990) provides that real estate which is not directly related to the business of the said corporation shall not be included in deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the income amount of each business year. Article 43-2 (5) of the same Act provides that real estate which is not directly related to the business of the said corporation means real estate for the period after its acquisition, revenue amount generated from the relevant real estate, area of the building, and degree related to the business of the said corporation shall be excluded:

However, according to the result of on-site inspection by a party member, slof among the facilities in this case, the slof was suspended from the area of a mountain, so as to enable the snow level snowd by the ridge line in the circumstances of the mountain, and the water supply and drainage facilities are installed on the underground. The retaining wall is a stone embankment to prevent the collapse of slofs, and the swimming pool can be recognized as a facility that slofs off the slofs with a slofs, so it cannot be deemed as an independent real estate that can be a separate taxation or transaction object regardless of the land as part of the land, and therefore, it does not constitute real estate that is not directly related to the business of the juristic person concerned under Article 18-3 (1) 3 of the Corporate Tax Act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant's disposition of imposition on the premise that the facility of this case falls under the real estate for non-business use as stipulated in the above Corporate Tax Act is illegal. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is justified.