2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

A. On January 2, 2012, the Defendant revoked the collection disposition of KRW 695,297,590, corporate tax withheld for the business year 2007 against Plaintiff AA Limited Company, KRW 767,346,510, corporate tax withheld for the business year 2008, KRW 782,540,840, corporate tax withheld for the business year 2009, KRW 762,526,070, corporate tax withheld for the business year 2010, KRW 9,451,041,060, total corporate tax withheld for the business year 2010, and KRW 12,458,752,070.

B. On January 26, 2012, the Defendant: (a) designated Plaintiff AAAA limited liability company as the secondary taxpayer for the Plaintiff AAA limited liability company on January 26, 2012; and (b) revoked all the disposition of imposition of KRW 12,458,752,070 in total of the corporate tax withheld as described in paragraph (a).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of some of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance and addition of some of the following, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

(2) The main part shall be the part

The part of the second column of the table No. 2 at the lower end of the judgment of the first instance shall be understood as the dividend income amount.

Article 30(1) of the German Investment Act provides that "The property belonging to the fund shall be owned independently or jointly with the investor in accordance with Article 30(1) of the German Investment Act" of the 11st and 12th judgment of the first instance court shall be construed as "the property belonging to the fund shall be owned independently in accordance with Article 30(1) of the German Investment Act."

Part 6 of the 14th part "the shares issued by the plaintiff AA" shall be "the shares issued by the plaintiff AA".

Part 14 of the 19th page "a bank account opened" shall be "a bank account opened".

Parts to be added

Part 5 of the 14th sentence "I seem to have no choice but to hold indirectly" includes the following:

The defendant asserts that since the AA Fund may jointly own the shares of Plaintiff AA as an investor, it should not be indirectly owned through Plaintiff D II, but it should be deemed that the indirect possession through Plaintiff D II had the purpose of tax avoidance.

However, even if the AA Fund can be jointly owned by investors under the German Investment Law, it seems that the AA Fund is ordinarily traded on the securities market as a listed and public model investment fund, and the number of investors is very large. In such a situation, it seems difficult in reality to jointly hold the assets of the AA Fund as an individual investor, not an asset management company, and therefore, it is difficult to deem that the AA Fund owned the shares of the Plaintiff AAA Fund, even though it may be jointly owned by investors, it is difficult to deem that the AA Fund was owned by the CCC to be a basis for recognizing the purpose of tax avoidance.

Part 16. The following shall be added to the first sentence:

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant dividend income ought to be deemed as owned by AA Fund, a truster, pursuant to the legal principles on title trust. However, Plaintiff CCC merely holds the Plaintiff AA’s shares on its own name, but is a decision-making entity that determines the subject of investment, dividend, and collection of investment funds through disposal of shares, etc., and thus, cannot be seen as equal to that of the title trustee in the legal principles on title trust in Korea.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed as it is without merit.