Plaintiff Kaaa Company

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax (including additional tax) 419,260,256 on March 29, 2012 against the Plaintiff, and the imposition of corporate tax (including additional tax) 2006 on August 1, 2012 in excess of 180,681,719 won among the imposition of corporate tax (including additional tax) 609,921,450 on August 1, 2012, and the imposition of corporate tax (including additional tax) 710,316,640 won in excess of 289,146,351 won in total shall be revoked.

A. Faaaa (Plaintiff) is a company established on January 7, 200 for the purposes of book publishing business, research, development, import, manufacture, and sale of teaching materials for young children, and owns 100% of its shares as xx. AAAAA (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”). AAAAAA (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) is a company established on February 1, 200, with 61% of its shares as faaaaa, owned by the father of w, for the purpose of visiting and educating the learning site produced by Paaa (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”).

B. From 2006 to 2008, FCC Co., Ltd. (2006, 2007) or DDDDD Co., Ltd. (2008) manufactured teaching materials, teaching equipment, and learning papers for young children, from 2006 to 2008. The above companies sold teaching materials, teaching equipment, and learning papers to EEE Co., Ltd. in the Seoul metropolitan area, sold them to EEE Co., Ltd., and sold teaching materials, teaching equipment, and learning papers to q operators in local areas.

(c)Faaa is a holder of the trademark of "BB" and is not paid any consideration to the company of this case from 2006 to 2008, while allowing the company of this case to use the trademark, and from 2009, it has received from the company of this case usage fees equivalent to 6 per cent of the turnover of education services.

D. The Defendant imposed corporate tax of KRW 593,710,100, corporate tax of KRW 509,921,450, corporate tax of August 1, 2012 on the ground that, “Faaaa has reduced the tax burden by a method that the instant company, a person with a special relationship, did not receive legitimate trademark right royalties from the instant company (hereinafter “instant taxation grounds”),” etc., under the Corporate Tax Act, the Defendant applied the provisions of the wrongful calculation panel under the Corporate Tax Act, and imposed corporate tax of KRW 593,710,00,00,000, and KRW 609,921,450, corporate tax of KRW 207, corporate tax of KRW 967,325,320, corporate tax of 208.

E. On June 26, 2012 and October 29, 2012, anyone who is dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On September 3, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to reject the argument on the instant tax grounds under Maaa as of September 3, 2014, and to rectify the tax base and tax amount.

F. Thereafter, the defendant is in accordance with the above decision of the Tax Tribunal or ex officio corporate tax of 2006.

419,260,256 won, and 710,316,640 won of corporate tax in 2008 were corrected by reduction.

G. Of the respective dispositions taken on March 29, 2012 and August 1, 2012, the tax amount related to the grounds for the instant taxation is KRW 419,260,256 of the corporate tax in 2006, KRW 429,239,738 of the corporate tax in 2007, KRW 421,170,289 of the corporate tax in 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “part of the instant tax amount”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including evidence attached with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a) argument faaaa

1) The economic rationality is sufficiently recognized as a result of business judgment that Faaa has not received trademark fees from AAA from 2006 to 2008, from the date of 2006.

2) In applying the provision of wrongful calculation, the burden of proving the market price is the tax authority.

There is no reasonable ground to regard 6% of the sales at the market price of the trademark right.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In a case where a corporation’s wrongful calculation division under Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Dec. 31, 2001) is deemed to have avoided or reduced the tax burden by unfairly evading or abusing the various forms of transactions listed in each subparagraph of Article 8(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457, Dec. 31, 2001) without using a reasonable method from a person with a special relationship, the said provision applies only to cases where the right to taxation is deemed to have neglected the economic rationality due to the wrongful and unreasonable calculation of the income which appears objective and reasonable in the manner prescribed by the Acts and subordinate statutes from the economic person’s standpoint. Determination of whether the economic rationality exists shall be made based on whether the relevant transaction was unfair in light of sound social norms or commercial practices, but the transaction price between a third party who is not a person with a special relationship, and special circumstances at the time of the transaction shall also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du5475, etc.

The following circumstances may be acknowledged in full taking account of each description of evidence Nos. 8 through 31 and the purport of the whole arguments. (i) Trademark right is an exclusive or exclusive right of a trademark right holder, which has been formed by a trademark right holder with a considerable amount of capital and effort, and credit extended for time, and thus protects trademark rights having property value widely known through our legal system trademark law and Unfair Competition Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act, and considering that the trademark right holder's "BB" has a considerable degree of awareness in the field of ‘BB' and the visiting education industry for children, it is an exceptional and natural faab that the owner of the trademark fails to receive any consideration while allowing another person to use the trademark, from the viewpoint of a reasonable economic person. (ii) If AAA is to receive a royalty from the AAA, it is highly likely that the trademark right will be reduced by the cost competitiveness of the AAA, which is ultimately, and thus, it is not likely that the AAA's own competitiveness will not be guaranteed by the AA.

Examining the circumstances of these transactions in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is reasonable to view that: (a) failure of ○○○○○ to collect trademark fees from the instant company, a person with a special relationship, from 2006 to 2008, constitutes an abnormal trade lacking economic rationality in light of sound social norms or commercial practices; and (b) the market price of trademark fees, which serves as the basis for calculating a legitimate tax amount, is 6% of the sales amount; and (c) each description and image of the evidence Nos. 10 to 25, are insufficient to reverse it, and there is no counter-proof. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.