[법인세부과처분취소][공1987.5.1.(799),661]
Whether income from the provision of personal services by a foreign corporation is exempt from tax pursuant to Article VIII of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income
If services provided by the service company of the United States, a corporation, are not know-how and are of a nature that can be performed normally by the same kind of service company, it falls under the personal services provided by Article 55(1)6 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 122(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, and if the income acquired as such is provided for services within a period not exceeding six months by a corporation of the United States, which has no fixed place of business in Korea, and falls under the income acquired as such, it shall be exempted from taxes in accordance with Article 8 of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income between the Republic
Article 55(1)6 of the Corporate Tax Act; Article 122(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act; Article VIII of the Convention on the Prevention of Tax Evasion and the Promotion of International Trade and Investment between the Republic of Korea and United States;
Supreme Court Decision 86Nu212 Decided October 28, 1986
Korea Comprehensive Technology Development Corporation, Inc.
Head of Yongsan Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu838 delivered on January 31, 1986
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.
1. 원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 채택증거에 의하여 종합건설용역 업체인 원고가 1982.7.29 교통부로부터 신 공항후보지 조사용역을 수주한 후 과학기술처장관의 승인을 받아 위 용역중의 일부인 현 김포공항의 수요, 용량분석, 신 공항의 시설요소, 공역분석 및 항공보조시설소요, 시설 배치 계획등에 관하여 국내에 고정사업장이 없는 미합중국 법인인 소외 피트 마위크 미첼회사(PEAT MARWICK MITHELL & CO. 이하 소외회사라 약칭한다)와 5개월 기간으로 용역계약을 체결하고 동 소외 회사로부터 그 약정기간내에 위 계약에 따른 용역을 제공받고 그 대가로 4회에 걸쳐 합계 금 113,535,650원을 소외 회사에 지급한 사실 및 원고가 소외회사로부터 제공받은 용역은 미공개된 특별한 지식이나 경험을 전수하는 이른바 노 하우(Know How)가 아니라 동종의 용역업자들이 통상적으로 수행할 수 있는 성질의 것이고 국내기술진만으로도 조사가 가능한 것인데 다만 안보상의 이유와 소외 회사가 동종의 다른 용역업체 보다 공항입지 선정에 관한 실적과 경험이 풍부한 것으로 평가되고 있는 점을 참작하여 소외회사에 위의 용역을 의뢰하게 되었을 뿐인 사실을 확정하고 있는 바, 기록을 검토하여 보면 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정은 수긍이 가고 거기에 채증법칙을 위배한 사실오인 내지 심리미진의 위법이 있음을 찾아볼 수 없다.
2. As determined by the court below, if the service provided by the non-party company is not so-called old and is of a nature that can normally be performed by the same kind of service company, it constitutes a personal service under Article 5 (1) 6 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 122 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. Thus, the income of the non-party company acquired in return for the above service shall eventually be the income acquired in return for the service provided within a period not exceeding 6 months by a non-permanent establishment in Korea, and the income acquired in return shall be exempted from taxation pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to International Trade and Investment (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea-U.S. Tax Convention"), although the defendant concluded the above service price as the royalty income under Article 55 (1) 9 of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, the disposition of this case is unlawful.
3. Accordingly, 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 judges.
Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)