2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

(a)* Environment Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Executor of this case") shall develop a separate housing site in Yangyang-si;

District**-Bable multi-family housing development project (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") entered into a business and loan agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "project in this case") with *** Company (hereinafter referred to as "***) and 72 special-purpose companies (hereinafter referred to as "the issuing company in this case") and **** Construction (hereinafter referred to as "the contractor in this case") that the instant executor would receive a loan from the issuing company in this case.

B. The issuer of this case entered into an asset management consignment agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "asset management agreement of this case") with securities companies (hereinafter referred to as "the instant discount agency") such as *** Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "** Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Investment Securities") on the same day, with the content that the issuer of this case entrusts the management of loans and claims on loans held by the instant discount agency against the instant executor, and of all rights and authority related thereto,

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff, which is a financial company under Article 3 of the Banking Act, and the issuer of the instant case, concluded a contract on entrustment of business affairs related to asset-backed securitization, management of asset-backed securities, payment of principal and interest, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract on entrustment of business affairs”).

D. On the same day, the instant issuer entered into a contract with the instant discount institution and the instant entrustment agreement, under which the instant issuer would take over the instant discount institution (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”) the assets collateral (ABCP1) issued by the instant issuing institution (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”).

E. On the same day, the instant issuer purchased, as a purchase guarantee agency, the instant discount agency, within a certain limit, those bills issued by the instant issuing agency, which were not purchased. The instant issuing agency entered into an agreement on the purchase guarantee of corporate bills with the instant issuing agency to purchase the remaining bills (hereinafter “the instant purchase guarantee agreement”).

F. According to the instant entrustment contract, the Plaintiff issued corporate bills on behalf of the issuing agency of this case for the purpose of raising the business funds of this case, and the process until the said bills are issued and paid is as shown below [Do table] (However, in the table below, the investors shall be paid the amount of bills from the presenting bank upon the presentation of the bill to the bank where the current account is opened on the maturity date, and the presenting bank shall receive the amount of the bill including the discounted amount from the presenting bank, and the presenting bank shall enter the front and rear of the received bill into the clearing-house computer network, after ascertaining the information on the bill, the clearing-house shall confirm the payment bank as stated on the bill, send a photograph of the original bill, and the paying bank shall pay to the paying bank through the Bank of Korea the difference between the amount of the bill to be settled after ascertaining the necessary and formal descriptions of the received bill, and the paying bank shall pay

【Doide List】

H. From July 22, 2014 to October 8, 2014, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office conducted a consolidated investigation of the Plaintiff’s corporate entrepreneurs, and notified the Plaintiff of the corporate tax data on the amount of KRW 8,95,90,000 (hereinafter “instant corporate bills”) for KRW 3,219 (hereinafter “instant corporate bills”) from December 8, 201 to April 19, 2013 as listed in the following table, in the course of paying to a corporation that is an investor, the amount of KRW 202,194,416,992 included in the said bills of exchange (hereinafter “the instant discount”) to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform its corporate tax obligation on the amount of KRW 202,194,416,92 included in the said bills of exchange (hereinafter “instant discount”).

(i) On November 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing corporate tax of KRW 406,46,020 for the year 201, including KRW 1,632,350,99, and KRW 2,000 for the reason that the Plaintiff did not submit a statement of payment related to the discounted amount of corporate tax of KRW 100,000 for the year 201, and KRW 864,66,530 for the corporate tax of KRW 2012 (additionally paid for withholding) and KRW 33,704,30 for the corporate tax of KRW 2013 for the year 201 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(j) On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on December 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 9, Eul evidence 1 through 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

A) As long as the instant discount institution and the financial company that purchased the said commercial papers from the Plaintiff bears the duty to withhold the instant discount amount pursuant to Article 73(5) and (8) of the Corporate Tax Act, so long as the said discount institution, etc. bears the duty to withhold the said amount, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff merely enters into the instant business trust agreement with the issuer and the instant business trust agreement, and Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act constitutes a special provision under Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act, which is cited by the Plaintiff as the grounds for the instant disposition, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to withhold the instant discount

B) Even if the Plaintiff is liable to withhold the instant discount amount, there are justifiable grounds for the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the said withholding duty.

2) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff performed the business of issuing the instant corporate bills and paying the amount of discount, which are the cause of the instant discount amount, through the instant business trust agreement. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to withhold corporate tax on the instant discount amount based on Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act. (2) The Plaintiff cannot be held liable to withhold corporate tax on the instant discount amount based on Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, which is based on Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act. Even if the instant discount institution, etc., were to be liable for withholding taxes on the instant discount amount based on Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, even if the instant discount institution, etc., were to be liable for withholding taxes on the instant discount amount based on Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, it cannot be deemed to fall under the special provisions of Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On June 16, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into with the instant issuer*** the main contents of the instant entrustment contract with the tea are as follows.

2) The Defendant asserted that only Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act is asserted, or that Article 73(4) and (5) of the Corporate Tax Act is limited to Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act, on July 6, 2017, on the legal basis that the Plaintiff is liable to withhold the instant discounted amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant statutes, etc.

A) Article 73(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where a person who pays interest income under the Income Tax Act to a domestic corporation (hereinafter referred to as "tax withholding agent") pays such amount, he/she shall withhold corporate tax equivalent to the amount calculated by applying a certain tax rate and pay it." In applying Article 73(9) of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 113(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, income subject to withholding tax on interest, etc. from bonds, etc. shall be the income accrued during the period in which the domestic corporation acquires and holds bonds, etc. when Article 73(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "in addition, Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the act of a person who acts on behalf of the withholding agent or is entrusted by the person in question or within the scope of delegation or authorization shall be deemed the act of the principal or the delegating, and Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "where a domestic corporation acquires, trades, arranges or acts as an agent for the domestic corporation, etc., it shall be excluded from withholding tax.

B) Meanwhile, “a person who is a withholding agent or delegated by a person under Article 127(2) of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13558, Dec. 15, 2015)” refers to a person who is obligated to pay the income amount under each subparagraph of Article 127(1) of the Income Tax Act within the scope of his/her authorized authority or delegation, as well as a withholding agent, who is authorized or delegated to pay the income tax to the competent tax office, i.e., the withholding agent or the withholding agent, in addition to the withholding agent or the withholding agent. Such delegation may be made explicitly and explicitly. However, in light of the nature and effect of withholding tax, there must be circumstances to presume that the person liable to pay the income amount has an intention of delegation to the same extent as that of the explicit delegation. However, in cases where the person liable to pay the income amount performs a legal act that causes income subject to withholding on behalf of or with the delegation from the said person, and paid the income amount within the scope of his/her authorized authority or delegation.

2) Whether the Plaintiff’s duty to withhold the discounted value of the instant case is recognized

A) According to the above facts, the issuer of this case is a special purpose company established for the management, operation and disposal of securitization assets, issuance and redemption of asset-backed securities, etc., and is not allowed to employ employees pursuant to Article 20 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act. The issuer of this case and the Plaintiff are obligated to entrust the business trustee with the business affairs other than the business affairs prohibited by nature. The contract of this case was concluded between the issuer and the Plaintiff with the intent to entrust the Plaintiff with the management of funds related to asset-backed securitization based on underlying assets, including loans held by the issuer of this case against the company of this case and bonds related to the company of this case and all rights and authorities related thereto, etc. In the contract of this case, the Plaintiff is recognized as having entrusted the Plaintiff with the business affairs related to asset-backed securitization based on the underlying assets. The Plaintiff’s business affairs related to the preparation of financial statements, reporting and submission of documents on behalf of the issuer of this case, the business affairs related to the issuance of asset-backed bills, the business affairs related to the redemption of corporate bills, the post management affairs related to the trustor, and other business affairs to pay taxes.

B) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts acknowledged as above and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is liable to withhold the discounted value of the instant case solely on the basis of the facts acknowledged as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The withholding system is an exceptional method of collecting taxes by which a person who is not a taxpayer is obliged to pay taxes after deducting the amount of tax to be paid by the person liable to pay taxes from the amount of income to be paid, etc., thereby preventing tax evasion and ensuring convenience in tax collection through the withholding system. However, as a withholding agent, the person liable to pay taxes bears the expenses required for withholding taxes without consideration, and as well as the amount equivalent to the amount of tax to be paid through withholding, as well as penalty taxes where the person liable to pay taxes violates his/her obligation to withhold taxes. Therefore, taking account of the aspects of restrictions on property rights of the person liable to pay taxes, the withholding

② The instant discount scheme is a securities finance company under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, which falls under “financial company, etc.” as referred to in Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and it is deemed that the instant discount scheme constitutes “financial company, etc.” as referred to in Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, and that it has not been purchased to investors among the instant underwriting agreement and the said corporate bills that it intends to purchase within a certain limit constitutes “acquisition of the said corporate bills by entering into a purchase guarantee agreement,” and thus, it is deemed that it constitutes “financial company, etc. that has accepted bills issued by a domestic corporation” under Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax

(3) In addition, where a domestic corporation sells the relevant bonds, etc. to another person during the period of calculating interest accruing from the bonds, etc., the relevant corporation shall withhold the interest, etc. accruing from the period of holding the bonds, etc. on behalf of the withholding agent pursuant to Article 73(8) of the Corporate Tax Act. In such cases, where the instant corporate bills were acquired at the discount agency and sold to another financial company before the maturity, the relevant discount agency and the financial company selling the instant corporate bills shall be liable to withhold the interest equivalent to the discounted amount pursuant to the above provision (i.e., the instant discount agency, a domestic corporation, shall withhold the interest income equivalent to the discounted amount on behalf of the financial company purchased the instant corporate bills on the date of sale on the date of sales under Article 73(8) of the Corporate Tax Act, and where the financial company that purchased the instant corporate bills from the instant discount agency sells them to another financial company on behalf of the purchasing company on the date of sale under Article 73(8) of the Corporate Tax Act).

In this case, Article 73(8) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a corporation that sells bonds, etc. to another person shall be deemed a withholding agent and the Corporate Tax Act shall apply. As such, with respect to the portion on which the instant discount agency and the financial company that purchased the instant corporate bills, bears the withholding duty under Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act, there is no room for a problem.

④ Ultimately, where the instant corporate bills are not distributed after their issuance and acceptance, interest income tax on the discounted amount shall be withheld on behalf of the instant issuer pursuant to Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act. Where the instant corporate bills are distributed after their issuance and acceptance, interest income tax on the discounted amount acquired by itself pursuant to Article 73(8) of the Corporate Tax Act shall be withheld on behalf of the relevant issuer on the date of sale by the instant discount agency, and where the instant corporate bills are distributed after their issuance and acceptance, the relevant purchaser of the said corporate bills shall withhold interest on the discounted amount acquired by himself/herself pursuant to Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act on the date of maturity (where the financial company that purchased the said corporate bills from the instant discount agency sells them again to another financial company, the said selling financial company shall be liable to withhold interest on the discounted amount acquired by itself on behalf of the financial company purchased pursuant to Article 73(8) of the Corporate Tax Act, and the said purchased financial company shall be subject to withholding on the discounted amount acquired by itself pursuant to Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act on the maturity date).

⑤ As long as the Plaintiff had been entrusted with the issuance and redemption of the corporate bills of this case, which are the cause of withholding income through the instant entrustment contract, the Defendant also received a delegation of the obligation to withhold corporate tax on the instant discount amount. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to withhold corporate tax on the instant discount amount pursuant to Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act cannot be deemed to fall under the special provisions under Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act. Thus, even if the instant discount institution, etc. is liable for withholding tax pursuant to Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, the Plaintiff still asserts that the Plaintiff is liable for withholding tax on the instant discount amount pursuant to Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act. However, even if the Plaintiff satisfies the requirements of “the person who was represented or delegated by the Plaintiff” under Article 73(4) of the Corporate Tax Act as alleged above, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is liable for withholding tax on the instant discount amount.

In order for the Plaintiff to perform the obligation to withhold the discounted amount of this case, the Plaintiff appears to have to be able to verify whether the commercial papers of this case, other than the discounted amount, are traded in the middle of the commercial papers of this case, and whether the discounted amount of each sales stage, and whether the discounted amount of the commercial papers of this case are withheld or not. The Plaintiff appears to have confirmed whether the commercial papers presented for payment meet the requirements for bills and whether the endorsement is continuous, and paid the discounted amount. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was aware or could have known that the Plaintiff was aware of the above facts. As such, imposing the Plaintiff with the duty to withhold taxes on the Plaintiff who is in a position of unknown or difficult to understand information related to withholding is

In addition, after the issuance of the corporate bills in this case, the Plaintiff’s discount agency and financial companies that purchased the above corporate bills through the underwriting contract in this case after the issuance of the corporate bills in this case appear to be one who can easily and clearly grasp whether the above corporate bills in this case were traded in the middle of each trading stage and whether the source was collected. As seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff’s discount agency, etc. is acknowledged to be liable for withholding taxes on the discounted amount in this case pursuant to Article 73(5) and (8) of the Corporate Tax Act, it is more reasonable to impose them withholding taxes

Pursuant to Article 73(5) of the Corporate Tax Act, since a financial company, etc. mainly engages in acquiring, selling, arranging, or acting as an agent for bills or debentures issued by a domestic corporation, etc., it can more smoothly perform the withholding duty compared to a general domestic corporation. In general, a bill or debt issued by an ordinary company can be performed through a financial company, etc. for the convenience of credit and transaction, or for the prompt transfer to many and unspecified persons, and even if a person who pays interest income from bills or debt certificates issued the relevant bills or debt certificates issues a domestic corporation, the actual business related thereto is performed by the financial company, etc., and the person who receives income from the financial company, etc. is also against the financial company, etc., and it seems that imposing the withholding duty on the financial company under the strong supervisory authority of the State rather than a large number of domestic corporations that are issued by the tax authority, considering the fact that it is more reasonable to impose the withholding duty on the financial company, etc. under the strong supervisory authority of the State, it seems that the withholding agent can be deemed a withholding agent even without any other relationship between the financial company and the corporation.

㉣ 나아가 피고의 위 주장은 원천징수의무자가 병존적으로 존재할 수 있음을 전제로 하는 것인데, 이는 과세관청에 지나친 특혜를 주는 것일 뿐만 아니라, 원천납세의무자가 동일한 소득에 대한 세금을 이중으로 원천징수 당할 우려가 있는 점, 원천징수의무자가 병존적으로 존재하는 경우 원천징수의무를 이행하지 않은 다른 한 쪽은 원천징수의무불이행에 따른 가산세를 부과받을 우려가 있는 점, 어느 한 쪽이 원천징수의무를 이행하면 다른 한 쪽의 원천징수의무는 소멸한다고 보더라도 어느 한 쪽의 원천징수의무 발생 여부가 다른 한 쪽의 원천징수의무 이행 여부에 달려 있게 되어 원천징수의무자의 법적 지위가 불안정하게 되는 문제가 발생하는 점, 이는 징수의 편의를 위해 소득 금액과 시기를 가장 잘 아는 자에게 획일적으로 징수의무를 부과하는 원천징수제도의 취지에도 부합하지 않는 점 등을 고려할 때, 받아들이기 어렵다.

3) Scope of revocation

The Plaintiff is liable to withhold and pay corporate tax on the discount amount of the instant case.

The Defendant’s imposition of the additional tax on the additional tax on withholding and on the failure to submit a statement of payment on the premise that it is unlawful. As such, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 1,632,350,90 on November 3, 2014 (additional tax on withholding) imposed on the Plaintiff for the year 201, and ② the imposition of KRW 406,466,020 of the corporate tax on November 3, 2014, exceeding KRW 306,466,00,000, and KRW 1,64,666,530 of the corporate tax on December 5, 2014 (additional tax on withholding) attributed to the Plaintiff, and KRW 33,370 of the corporate tax on withholding tax on November 3, 2014 (additional tax on withholding), the imposition of KRW 303,370 of the corporate tax on withholding tax on December 5, 2014 should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per the disposition.

(c)