November 21, 2014

1. LLAL AA Holdings 70 7

2. BB financial holding company;

AA Head of the Tax Office

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

가. 피고가 2012. 7. 9. 원고 LLL AAA 홀딩스 ☆☆☆☆☆에게 한 2012. 3. 5.자 원천징수세액 387,645，171，890원의 경정거부처분을 취소한다.

B. On February 1, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of withholding tax of KRW 4,307,168,570 (including additional tax) for the business year 2010 against Plaintiff BB financial branch owners shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

1) Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the order to revoke below shall be revoked.

2) A) The portion equivalent to KRW 210,394,417,039 of the disposition rejecting correction of KRW 387,645,171,890, which the Defendant rendered to Plaintiff LLAL AA Holdings on July 9, 2012, among the disposition rejecting correction of KRW 387,645, and 171, and 890.

B) The Defendant’s disposition of withholding corporate tax of KRW 4,307,168,570 (including additional tax) for the business year 2010 against Plaintiff BB financial branch owner on February 1, 2013 is revoked each of the parts equivalent to KRW 2,37,715,744.

B. Defendant

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and all of the hearing affairs of the plaintiffs corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) write some of the contents as stated in paragraph (2) below; (b) add the judgment on the plaintiffs’ assertion in the trial in paragraph (3) above; and (c) is the same as the reasoning for the judgment in the first instance; and (c) accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the text

2. Parts of dried water

Part 3 of the third page "A Bank" is regarded as "AB Bank".

(2) The plaintiff's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right to request correction or rejection of correction's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right to request correction. However, the above legal principle is not based on the actual right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right to request correction or rejection of correction can not be acknowledged as the plaintiff's right holder's right holder's right of right.

O In the last sentence of AA U.S. of the 9th PP, "B Commonpa Company" is deemed to be "JP", when the shares of this case were transferred to B as of February 9, 2012, and the last sentence of the 10th PP.

O 3(c) adds to evidence of reference No. 50 a. 50 a.

Pursuant to Section 8 and Section 9 of the 18th page, the entire process was led to the transfer of shares to the acquisition of shares, and the sale of shares by BB bank was conducted under the lead of L's representative AABB, etc.

"If the 6th PS of theO is a company controlled......", "L is a company controlled through AAS, BAA Fund EL from among top-tier investors through AAS, BAA Global Holdings, L is a company controlled through AAAA Global Holdings," and the heading 20 to 26th page 18 of theO are as follows.

As to this case, health class, AASS consists of lsP and 38 final investors, which are GP (1% of shares). 38 final investors, are U.S. residents [the defendant asserts that data provided by the plaintiffs are insufficient to recognize the final investors as U.S. residents, but the Internet data and establishment-related documents (A No. 44-1 through 51 of evidence No. 50), final investors' certificates (A evidence No. 54-1, 3 through 5 of evidence No. 54), and resident certificates (A), which are resident residents of the AAS or some of the final investors, are sufficient to recognize that the final investors are U.S. residents of the Republic of Korea. 38 final investors of the transfer income of this case appear to be allocated according to the investment shares of the above final investors [the defendant is not sufficiently able to prove that the final investors of the U.S. income of this case are actually distributed to the final investors of the tax authorities, but it is not sufficient to prove that the final investors of the 3ASP agreement should not be allocated.

Meanwhile, LP, AAS’s GP, consists of LP (LP, 0.1% equity interest) and 25 LP (9.9% equity interest). According to the evidence 54-2 and 9-9 of LP, some of LP’s members are U.S. residents or LP (LP) can be recognized. However, as long as there is insufficient proof of the Plaintiffs as to the amount of equity interest in LP owned by LP, the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty cannot apply to all of LP’s LP’s equity interest in LP (1%).

"Therefore, among the transfer income of this case, the part belonging to the LP of AAS (excluding 9% of the equity interest of LP, which is the GP) is subject to the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty (Article 8.6 of the OECD Model Convention 84 states that "A.S. is liable for comprehensive tax payment on global income on the basis of the resident's residence rule under the laws of the Contracting State. It is sufficient for the country to bear abstract tax liability under the internal tax law of the Contracting State, and it shall be interpreted as the burden of tax payment even if it is not actually paid by the non-taxation reduction or exemption." In light of the above, the state is a standard that accepts the international authority for the correct interpretation of the tax treaty concluded between member countries of OECD and it can be a reference material in the interpretation of the treaty between member countries of OECD."

"The beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case is the plaintiff, and the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty should be applied. Even if the plaintiff is a Doing company established under the order to avoid the taxation of the transfer income of this case, and the six higher-tier investors who exclude the AAAS and partnership (hereinafter referred to as "six higher-tier investors") are not the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case, but not foreign corporations under the Corporate Tax Act, so the tax treaty should be applied to the part of the transfer income of this case which belongs to six higher-tier investors on the basis of their final investors."

1) As to the application of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty

2) If a foreign unincorporated association, foundation, or other organization acquires domestic source income under Article 119 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013) or Article 93 of the Corporate Tax Act with respect to the application of a tax treaty based on the final investors of six higher-tier investors and it constitutes a profit-making organization that distributes it to individuals who are its members, and if it can be seen as a foreign corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, the organization shall be liable to pay corporate tax on domestic source income. If it cannot be seen as a foreign corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, the organization shall be liable to pay corporate tax on the income distributed to each of its members as a taxpayer in the same manner as in the case of a resident. Whether it can be seen as a foreign corporation to be treated as a foreign corporation under the Corporate Tax Act shall be determined depending on whether it can be viewed as a subject of separate obligation from its members under the private law in light of the content of its head office or main office and the substance of the organization established (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du16136164, Apr. 21616, 2013).

"살피건대, 앞서 든 각 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 6개 상위투자자들은 최종투자자들로부터 모집한 자금으로 원고 ○○○를 통하여 BB은행의 발행주식을 취득하여 보유하다가 양도하는 과정에서 주식 매입자금의 실질적인 공급처의 역할을 한 점, ② 6개 상위투자자들은 BB은행의 발행주식 양수도 거래를 통하여 양도소득 등을 얻으려는 고유한 투자목적을 가지고 설립된 단체로서, 일상업무를 집행하며 무한책임을 지는 GP와 운영에 적극적으로 관여하지 않는 소극적 투자자로서 투자한도 내에서만 책임을 지는 LP로 구성되어 있고, 6개 상위 투자자들의 GP인 LSP가 최종투자자 모집, 자금의 운용 및 소득 배분을 하였던 점，③ 6개 상위투자자들은 AAA유에스，파트너스과 함께 홀딩스 엘피 및 원고 를 설립하고 이들을 통하여 이 사건 주식을 취득한 후 양도함으로써 이 사건 양도소득이 발생한 점, ④ 원고들은 최종투자자 1인으로 구성된 일부 상위투자자들이 있다,"고 주장하나，지분비율 0,1% 내지 1.0%인 GP와 그 외 내로 구성되어 있으므로 최종투자자 1인으로 구성되었다고 볼 수 없는 점, ⑤ LP가 1인으로 구성된 파트너십은 투자단계상 복수 투자자로 구성된 다른 파트너십과 동일한 목적으로 설립 되어 투자구호도상 같은 단계를 구성하는바, 이런 상황 하에서모집된 투자자의 수 라는 우연한 사정에 따라 권리의무 귀속 주체인지 여부를 달리 볼 수 없는 점，© 6개 상위투자자들은 버뮤다국 법률에 의하여 설립되어 구성원인 사원들과는 별개의 재산을 보유하고 투자대상을 취득,매각하는 등의 행위를 할 수 있으며, 버뮤다국 대법원 규칙에 따라 일정한 경우 6개 상위투자자들 명의로 소송을 제기하거나 다른 파트너십을 상대로 소송을 제기할 수 있는 점, ⑦ 버뮤다국 법률에 의하여 설립된 유한책임회사 또는 파트너십에 대한 미국 등 타국의 세법상 취급에 따라 법인세법상 외국법인에 해당하는지 여부가 좌우되지는 않는 점 등을 고려할 때，6개 상위투자자들은 구성원의 개성이 강하게 드러나는 인적 결합체라기보다는 구성원의 개인성과는 별개로 권리의무의 주체가 될 수 있는 독자적 존재로서의 성격을 가지고 있으므로，우리 법인세법상 과세대상이 되는 외국법인에 해당한다고 봄이 타당하다.",이와 같이 6개 상위투자자들이 법인세법상 외국법인으로서 법인세 부과대상에 해당한다고 보는 이상 6개 상위투자자들의 거주지인 버뮤다국과 대한민국간에 조세조약이 체결되어 있지 않으므로, 이 사건 양도소득 중 6개 상위투자자들 귀속분에 대하여 최종투자자들을 실질적인 귀속자로 보아 그 거주지국과 관련된 조세조약을 적용하여 원천징수를 면할 수는 없다. 따라서 원고들의 이 부분 주장 역시 이유 없다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the above recognized scope as reasonable, and the claim for payment shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified in this conclusion, all appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.