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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition rejecting correction of the corporate tax withheld for the business year 2010 for the Plaintiff on July 22, 2013 and the corporate tax withheld for the business year 2010 and the corporate tax withheld for the business year 2011 was revoked.

A. Status of the plaintiff, etc.

On September 13, 2006, the Plaintiff's International Motor Vehicle Racing (hereinafter referred to as "F1 Races")

(d) A corporation incorporated with the objective of attracting and holding international and domestic motor vehicle competitions, including "FF", has its principal office in England** (hereinafter referred to as "FF") and is established for the purpose of holding and operating the F1 Games." (b) the significance and process of holding the F1 Games.

F1 The F1st Competition is the International Motor Vehicle Racing which determines the order of priority by adding up the points for each racing in approximately 20 stadiums in the world from March to October every year and adding up the points for each team.

F1 The last review and approval of the International Motor Vehicle Federation (AA) after entering into a contract with FF and the International Motor Vehicle Federation (AA), which wishes to hold a F1 F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F. F.

The International Motor Vehicle Association shall examine whether the stadium held by a person who entered into a contract with FF is equipped with a certain size and facilities, including whether the design and construction complies with international sports standards, medical facilities in the stadium, and whether the shelter area has been secured appropriately in the event of an accident. If the stadium is equipped with the size and facilities, the International Motor Vehicle Association shall grant a qualification of 1' 'one' for the stadium, and '1' for the stadium to hold the F1 event.

F1. An automobile racing team that wishes to participate in the F1 Games (hereinafter referred to as 'F1 racing team') shall enter into an agreement with the FF, and the F1 racing team shall enter into the agreement with the FF, and according to that agreement, the F1 racing team shall enter into at least two motor vehicles and radars for each F1 event.

C. Conclusion of a professional contract between the Plaintiff and FF

On February 6, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with FF with respect to the Korea Scuaf Games (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) as an F1 event, and the main contents are as follows:

(A) The International Motor Vehicle Federation and its member teams (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") have concluded the Convention governing certain aspects of the F1 Games (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention").

(B) The beer Code Convention sets out a standard form for the purpose of promoting the F1 F1 F.C. approved by the International Motor Transport Association.

(C) The Plaintiff applied for the event of the International Motor Vehicle Federation F1 monthly heads and obtained approval for holding such event.

Article 3 FF’s Obligations

3.1. The FF will grant the Plaintiff the following rights ( collectively referred to as "promoter rights") during the term of the contract, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement:

(a) the right to promote the event of the AA 20 Formula 200 Sypt Magyll; and

(b) The right to designate the event as the head of AA 20 Formula 20,00

3.2. The Plaintiff agrees that the Plaintiff’s right is limited to the event.

3.3F agrees to:

(a) Recogniz this event as part of the heading of AA 20 Formula 200, and

(b) advise, support and consult with the Plaintiff in connection with the event as the FF considers necessary and/or appropriate.

Article 4 (Guarantees of Plaintiff)

In relation to the above, the plaintiff shall ensure that:

The plaintiff shall obtain or apply for all authorization, permission and approval (if necessary, government approval) necessary to hold the event, and all such authorization, permission and approval shall be based only on the fulfillment of the conditions which are unconditional or notified in writing to the FF and shall not be revoked.

In and around the stadium and/or its surrounding areas, AAA will be prepared for final inspection of AAA in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.2 (b) of the Condital Agreement (including modifications made by the Parties on February 6, 2007) concluded on March 21, 2006 between the parties. The construction of the facilities described in the present plan as defined in Section 3.2.2.(b) of the Convention. The stadium is completed, and the stadium will be prepared for its final inspection by 90 days before the first event scheduled in 2010.

Article 9 Design of stadiums

The design of stadiums and their equipment and the safety measures taken by the plaintiff shall comply with the requirements of the AA in all respects.

Article 16 (Number of Participants in Racing

FF shall make every reasonable effort to enable at least 16 racing cars to participate in the event, or to comply with the provisions of Article 10.4 of the Congo Code to comply with the provisions of the Convention.

Article 23 Payment

23.1The Plaintiff shall agree to pay the following amount below the FF in exchange for providing the rights agreed upon in this Agreement and performing its duties:

(a) all taxes are imposed on 2010 and US$ 36,147,855.00

(b) An amount increased by 10 per annum from the amount due for each subsequent year of the contract period and payable in the immediately preceding year;

Article 36 Confidentiality

36.1. The Parties agree to take any possible measure to keep confidential information of the other Party’s confidential information and agree not to disclose such confidential information to any person or for its commercial purposes by any act or omission.

36.2. For the purposes of this Article, the term "confidential information" shall include the following information:

(a) Commercial terms of this Agreement;

(b) the provisions and a copy of the beer Code Convention, which is disclosed from time to time to time to time to the Plaintiff, a confidential information of FF

·information expressly indicated as confidential information, or information delivered to the other party in the situation where the obligation to maintain confidentiality is denied.

D. Payment of corporate tax withheld by the Plaintiff

The plaintiff asked the National Tax Service about the nature of the money paid to FF under the contract of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "instant fee"), and the National Tax Service responded to the plaintiff as the fee.

The Plaintiff paid FF the instant holding fee, USD 36,147,85 on July 30, 201, USD 36,147,85 on July 27, 2011, and USD 39,762,640 on July 27, 2011. According to the National Tax Service’s response, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the instant holding fee constituted the royalty income under Article 12(3) of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Transfer Income between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom (hereinafter “the Convention on the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and Transfer Income; and (b) paid the Defendant, as the corporate tax withheld with the withholding tax rate of KRW 10% on August 10, 201, KRW 4,35,547,480 on August 4, 2011, respectively.

E. Holding the Plaintiff’s F1 Games

The Plaintiff, in accordance with the instant contract, held F1 E.1 E.C. on two occasions in 2010 and 201, and F.F participated in 12 F1 racing teams and 24 vehicles for each event.

F. Plaintiff’s request for correction and Defendant’s rejection disposition

On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a request for rectification of corporate tax on the ground that the Plaintiff did not have the right to impose taxes in the Republic of Korea pursuant to the Korea-U.S. Tax Convention, but withdrawn on August 20, 2012. The FF filed a request for rectification of corporate tax on the same ground on July 23, 2012, but the Defendant dismissed the said request for rectification of FF on September 26, 2012.

On May 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for rectification of corporate tax with the Defendant on the same ground. On July 22, 2013, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s application for rectification on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot make a duplicate request for rectification (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(g) Procedures for the previous trial;

The Plaintiff appealed and filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 31, 2013. However, on November 21, 2013, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to request the correction is recognized, but the instant right to request the correction was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 9, and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the instant permit fee constitutes FF’s independent personal service income or business income, and FF does not have a permanent establishment in Korea, the Defendant is not entitled to impose tax on FF on the instant permit fee in accordance with the Korea-U.S. Tax Convention. Accordingly, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) the relevant regulations;

Article 93 subparag. 8 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 2011; hereinafter the same) provides that with respect to royalty income for a foreign corporation’s domestic source income, “the copyright of scientific or artistic works, patent rights, trademark rights, designs, models, drawings, confidential formula or processes, films and tapes for radio or television broadcasting, and other similar assets or rights, and the cost of using any assets, information or right such as industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge and experience or know-how in the Republic of Korea or paying the cost of such use in the Republic of Korea.” Article 98 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that “the tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, etc. shall withhold it as corporate tax on the income of the foreign corporation for each business year and pay the fee to the foreign corporation with no domestic place of business as prescribed by Presidential Decree by the tenth day of the following month.”

Meanwhile, according to Article 12 of the Treaty, the profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State are taxable only in a Contracting State, unless the enterprise runs a business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment located in the other Contracting State.

In full view of the above provisions, for a foreign corporation which does not have a permanent establishment in the Republic of Korea, the commercial profit, which is the price for professional services, cannot be taxed in the Republic of Korea. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have an obligation to withhold corporate tax and pay it.

The Plaintiff is obligated to withhold corporate tax and pay tax on the royalty income, which is all kinds of payments received in return for information on achievements, commercial or academic experience.

B. Nature of the holding fee of this case

We examine whether the Plaintiff’s holding fee paid to FF constitutes “business income” or “business income” as a commercial profit from the provision of professional services (the Plaintiff asserts that it is an independent personal service income, but Article 12 of the Korea-U.S. Tax Convention recognizes the price that an individual provided professional services as an independent personal service income. Thus, the price that the FF provides professional services constitutes business income.

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the introduction of technical services from a foreign corporation does not transfer to the public technical information (n.e., know-how.) that the services received from the foreign corporation is performed with specialized knowledge or special skills ordinarily owned by the same kind of service provider, taking into account the parties to the service contract, the purpose of the contract, the content and nature of the contract, the price-related relationship, etc., the provision of such services constitutes a personal service provided for in Article 55(1)6 of the Corporate Tax Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu212, Oct. 28, 1986).

General Rule 93-132.7 of the Corporate Tax Act concerning the classification of old and old and independent personal services provides multi-level services (as seen earlier, the consideration for an individual’s provision of professional services is business income if an independent personal service income is provided by a corporation. Therefore, the General Rule of the Corporate Tax Act provides a standard for distinguishing professional services that are subject to royalty income and business income. Accordingly, regardless of whether it can be an object of information under subparagraph 8 (b) of Article 93 of the Corporate Tax Act or an intellectual property right in know-how, it is already existing before providing the relevant information as the main non-public technical information necessary for industrial reproduction of the products or process. Although it is not standardized or standardized, the consideration for the provision of professional services by an independent personal service provider is the same as that for the provision of services by ordinarily using the same kind of technology or skill as that for the provision of services.

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed in addition to the facts acknowledged earlier and the purport of the entire arguments, it is reasonable to deem that the instant royalty constitutes a royalty income for commercial information and know-how, rather than business income from the provision of professional services. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) The ultimate objective of which the Plaintiff and FF entered into the instant contract is to hold and earn profits from holding the automobile competition as an event in the Plaintiff’s stadium. Moreover, the profitability of the F1 Games is not merely because it is not because the Plaintiff is also the person, but rather because the technical capabilities of the global well-known motor vehicle company (so-called “so-called 's machine”) and the radars capable of operating it in a stable and rapid manner.

Therefore, in order to achieve the purpose of the contract of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to prepare the so-called "Belgium 1" stadium meeting the standards of the F1 Games, and the defendant is obligated to allow the plaintiff to participate more than 16 vehicles in the F1 convention held by the plaintiff.

B) Ultimately, in the instant contract, the primary obligation the FFF owes to the Plaintiff is providing the Plaintiff with the services of 'F1 racing teams' as well as 'F1 racing teams' in the F1st event held by the Plaintiff.

It is ‘.'

In the case of ordinary sports games, a person who wishes to participate in the games by inviting participants to participate in the games at his own option, and a person who wants to participate in the games shall participate in the games. On the other hand, in the case of the F1 Games as referred to in this case, the plaintiff, the holding authority, cannot invite participants in the F1 Games on his own, and the F1 Team, shall enter into an FF and the bee code agreement, and shall have two or more vehicles and signs for each F1 event in accordance with the agreement, the above FF's services are services that can be provided only by FF, and they are not services performed by utilizing specialized knowledge or functions ordinarily owned by the same kind of service.

C) Also, pursuant to Article 3(3)(b) of the instant contract, FF has an incidental obligation to provide the Plaintiff with advice and assistance with respect to the event as the FF considers necessary and/or appropriate.

However, the Plaintiff is obliged to obtain approval from the International Motor Vehicle Federation prior to the holding of F1 event with a certain level of stadiums and ancillary facilities, and to perform the responsibility of management required by the International Motor Vehicle Federation to take charge of the appropriate sanitation and safety of the F1 participant team during the holding of F1 event. Therefore, the Plaintiff without experience in holding a motor vehicle competition appears to have absolute advice and support by the FFF’s above-mentioned advisory and support with experience in overall over the F1 competition. In addition, given that FF’s advice is considered to have exclusive authority over F1 Games’s peculiaritys and FF, it is deemed that only the FF is able to provide services.

D) In the instant contract, the Plaintiff’s material secrets to FF in relation to the instant contract

FF has the right to transfer all of the benefits and obligations under the instant contract even without the consent of the Plaintiff, because it is not possible to sell or transfer the contractual rights to a third party without the FF’s written consent.

E) There is no evidence to deem that the instant holding fee, the consideration for the provision of the FF’s above service, was calculated by adding ordinary profits to the expenses incurred in the performance of the service in question.

Rather, even though FF appears to be to provide similar services to each F1ben, it seems that FF calculated the holding fee by any other method, not by calculating the amount calculated by adding ordinary profits to the expenses invested as above, due to the difference in the holding fee of each F1ben.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.