The Defendant’s disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld for the business year 2006 to the Plaintiff on March 2, 201, exceeding KRW 323,526,685 among the disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld for the business year 2006; the portion exceeding KRW 462,957,829 among the disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld for the business year 2007; the portion exceeding KRW 12,17,451,877 among the disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld for the business year 2008; the portion exceeding KRW 12,117,451,877 among the disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld for the business year 2008; the portion exceeding KRW 143,582,670 among the disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld for the business year 2008; and the portion exceeding KRW 269,132,670, corporate tax withheld for the business year 208; the portion exceeding KRW 29,527,6085,708.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. One-half of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The Defendant’s disposition of collecting corporate tax withheld at 688,517,420 for the business year 2006, corporate tax withheld at 867,774,750 for the business year 2007, corporate tax withheld at 25,071,881,810 for the business year 2008, corporate tax withheld at 269,132,670 for the business year 2008, corporate tax withheld at 269,132,670 for the business year 2008, and corporate tax withheld at 29,527,660 for the business year 208 is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the 2nd to 4th to 3rd, 12th to 19th, and 19th, and the corresponding part of the 1. Disposition) except for the following modifications. Thus, this Court's explanation is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ Part 16 of the Second Part of the Tax Treaty (hereinafter “Korea- Germany Tax Treaty”) is deemed to be “(hereinafter “Korea- Germany Tax Treaty”).”

The term "Korea- Germany Tax Treaty" of the third and third parts is respectively referred to as "Korea- Germany Tax Treaty."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff

㈎ GmbH 1, 2가 이 사건 배당소득의 수익적 소유자이므로 한·독 조세조약의 제한세율 5%를 적용해야 한다. 국내세법에서 국내 투자목적회사를 소득의 귀속자로 취급하고 있음에도 GmbH 1, 2가 투자목적회사로서 형식상의 회사에 불과하다는 이유로 수익적 소유자성을 부정한다면, 한·독 조세조약의 무차별원칙에 위반된다.

㈏ 설령 TMW가 이 사건 배당소득의 수익자라 하더라도, 국내세법상 과세실체가 될 수 있으므로 한·독 조세조약의 적용대상인 ‘법인’인 점, 이 사건 배당소득과 관련하여 독일에서 영업세를 납부하였으므로 한·독 조세조약의 적용대상인 거주자인 점, 원고의 발행주식 100%를 직접 보유한 것으로 볼 수 있는 점 등을 고려할 때, 한·독 조세조약의 제한세율 5%를 적용해야 한다.

㈐ 설령 TMW의 투자자들을 이 사건 배당소득의 실질적 수익적 소유자라 하더라도, 한·독 조세조약과 ‘대한민국 정부와 룩셈부르크 정부간의 소득 및 자본에 대한 조세의 이중과세회피와 탈세방지를 위한 협약’(이하 ‘한·룩셈부르크 조세조약’이라 한다), ‘대한민국 정부와 오스트리아 정부간의 소득 및 자본에 대한 조세의 이중과세회피와 탈세방지를 위한 협약’(이하 ‘한·오스트리아 조세조약’이라 한다)의 각 제한세율 15%를 적용해야 한다.

B. Doz.

㈎ TMW가 이 사건 배당소득의 수익적 소유자이나, 독일세법상 거주자가 아니므로 한·독 조세조약의 적용대상인 ‘법인’이나 ‘인’이 아닌 점, 원고의 발행주식을 직접 보유하지 않은 점, 한·독 조세조약의 제한세율 혜택을 받기 위하여 GmbH 1, 2를 설립하고 원고에게 간접투자하는 거래구조를 취한 점 등을 고려할 때, 한·독 조세조약의 제한세율 5%가 아닌 법인세법의 세율 25%를 적용해야 한다.

㈏ GmbH 1, 2가 이 사건 배당소득의 수익적 소유자라 하더라도 명목상의 회사로서 단지 형식적으로만 독일에 사무소를 두었을 뿐 실질적으로 독일에서 영업을 수행하지 않았으므로 한·독 조세조약의 적용대상인 거주자가 아닌 점, TMW가 한·독 조세조약의 제한세율 혜택을 받기 위하여 GmbH 1, 2를 설립하고 원고에게 간접투자하는 거래구조를 취한 점 등을 고려할 때, 법인세법의 세율 25%를 적용해야 한다.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

(1) beneficial owner of the dividend income of this case

㈎ 구 법인세법(2008. 12. 26. 법률 제9267호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제2조 제1항 제2호 등은 외국법인에 대하여는 국내원천소득이 있는 경우에만 법인세 납세의무가 있는 것으로 규정하고, 제2조 제4항 과 제98조 제1항 은 외국법인에 대하여 제93조 제9호 등의 일정한 국내원천소득의 금액을 지급하는 자에게 해당 법인세를 원천징수할 의무가 있는 것으로 규정하고, 제93조 제2호 와 제98조 제1항 제3호 는 외국법인의 국내원천소득인 배당소득에 대한 원천징수세율을 25%로 정하고 있다.

Meanwhile, Article 10(1) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty provides that “The dividends paid by a corporation which is a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other Contracting State,” and Article 10(2) provides that “if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a resident of the other Contracting State, the corporation paying them may also be taxed in that other Contracting State in accordance with the laws of that other Contracting State, which is a resident, the taxes imposed on them shall not exceed the following: Provided, That if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a resident of the other Contracting State, the taxes imposed on them shall not exceed the following: (a) Item (b) provides that “if the beneficial owner of the dividends is a corporation (excluding partnership) which directly holds at least 25 percent of the capital of the corporation paying the dividends, 5

The principle of substantial taxation provided for in Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8840 of Dec. 31, 2007 and Article 14(1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 9911 of Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same) where there is a separate person to whom the actual income, profit, property, transaction, etc., belongs differently from the nominal owner, the nominal owner should be the person to whom the property belongs, not the nominal owner for form or appearance. Therefore, where the nominal owner is not capable of controlling and managing the property, and there is a separate person who actually controls and manages it through the control, etc. over the nominal owner, and the disparity between the nominal owner and the real owner arises from the purpose of evading taxes, the income from the property shall be deemed reverted to the person who actually controls and manages the property, and the person to whom the property belongs shall be the person to pay taxes (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du84999, Jan. 19, 2012). 2014).

㈏ 갑 제3 내지 10, 12 내지 22, 24 내지 32, 34 내지 36호증, 을 제3 내지 8호증(가지번호 있는 것은 각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면 다음과 같은 사실이 인정된다.

① In order to avoid acquisition tax on the Seoul Tact Building, TPPW established GmbH 1 and 2 with consultation from relevant agencies, and had them acquire all outstanding shares of the Plaintiff possessing the Seoul Tact Building by 50%.

② GmbH 1 and 2 were identical to TMW and its location, contact address, and directors did not have independent personnel members, and all of the funds obtained the Plaintiff’s issued stocks were provided from TMW. From April 2006 to May 2008, the entire amount of dividends received from the Plaintiff, excluding the German capital gains tax, was immediately paid to TMW. Around July 2007, according to the decision of TMW, the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders passed a resolution to sell the Seoul City Telecommunication Building at the Plaintiff’s general meeting of shareholders.

③ On the other hand, the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the beneficial owner of the entire shares issued by the Plaintiff, and the Seoul Special Metropolitan City imposed the deemed acquisition tax on the Seoul Special Metropolitan City TW on the actual owner of the entire shares issued by the Plaintiff, and the TPP has filed a lawsuit of revocation of acquisition tax by dissatisfied therewith. The court rendered a judgment dismissing the TPP’s claim on the ground that there is no surface business performance and human and material organization other than the acquisition of the entire shares issued by the Plaintiff by GambH 1 and 2 by 50%, and the said judgment was finalized as it is.

㈐ 이와 같은 GmbH 1, 2의 설립경위와 목적, GmbH 1, 2의 인적·물적 조직과 사업활동 내역, TMW와 GmbH 1, 2의 소득에 대한 지배·관리 정도 등에 비추어 보면, GmbH 1, 2는 원고의 발행주식이나 이 사건 배당소득을 지배·관리할 능력이 없고 TMW가 GmbH 1, 2에 대한 지배권 등을 통하여 실질적으로 이를 지배·관리하였으며, 그와 같은 명의와 실질의 괴리가 오로지 조세를 회피할 목적에서 비롯된 것으로 볼 수 있으므로, 이 사건 배당소득의 실질귀속자는 GmbH 1, 2가 아니라 TMW라고 보아야 할 것이다. 그리고 GmbH 1, 2가 귀속 명의자에 불과한 이상 그 명의로 법률행위를 하였다거나 이들이 투자목적회사로 설립되었다고 하여 달리 볼 것도 아니다.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the beneficial owner of the instant dividend income is GmbH 1 and 2 is without merit.

DomW as a “corporation” and whether it constitutes a “resident” under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty.

㈎ 한·독 조세조약 제1조는 “이 협정은 일방 또는 양 체약국의 거주자인 인에게 적용한다.”고 정하면서, 제3조 제1항 (라)목과 (마)목에서 “이 협정의 목적상 문맥에 따라 달리 해석되지 아니하는 한, ‘인’이라 함은 개인 및 법인을 말하고, ‘법인’이라 함은 법인격이 있는 단체 또는 조세목적상 법인격이 있는 단체로 취급되는 실체를 말한다.”고 규정하고 있는데, 제4조 제1항은 “이 협정의 목적상 ‘일방체약국의 거주자’라 함은 주소, 거소, 본점이나 주사무소의 소재지 또는 이와 유사한 성질의 다른 기준에 의하여 그 국가의 법에 따라 그 국가 안에서 납세의무가 있는 인을 말한다. 그러나 이 용어에는 그 일방국 안의 원천 소득 또는 그 국가에 소재한 자본에 대하여만 그 일방국에서 납세의무가 있는 인은 포함되지 아니한다.”고 규정하고 있다.

Inasmuch as the issue of double taxation arises when both the resident state and the source state exercise the authority to impose taxes on the income accrued in the source state, it is necessary to prevent double taxation by properly allocating and coordinating the authority to impose taxes and the authority to impose taxes on the source state. Accordingly, both Contracting States enter into a tax treaty under the premise that the authority to impose taxes on the source state is not limited to the resident state, and the resident state has the same system as the foreign tax credit under their laws to respect the right to impose taxes on the source state. As such, the tax treaty assumes that the resident state assumes the domicile, residence, location of the head office or principal office, or any other similar standard in the resident state, and thus, the tax treaty cannot be applied to the income accrued in the source state unless the resident state bears such comprehensive tax liability.

Meanwhile, whether a foreign organization that received income from the Republic of Korea as a source country constitutes a "foreign corporation" under the Corporate Tax Act of the Republic of Korea shall be determined depending on whether it can be deemed an entity to whom separate rights and obligations are attributed independent of its members under the private law of the Republic of Korea (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du5950, Jan. 27, 2012). However, since it is merely for determining whether a foreign organization is a taxpayer under the Corporate Tax Act or a taxpayer under the Income Tax Act in the Republic of Korea as the source country of income, it shall be separately determined in accordance with tax treaties. Since a foreign organization that received income from the Republic of Korea as the source country is a "foreign corporation" under the Corporate Tax Act of the Republic of Korea, it shall not be deemed as a "resident" subject to the tax treaty as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Du2747, Oct. 24, 2013)

In the same purport, Articles 1 and 4(1) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty also stipulate that a tax treaty is applicable only to a resident who is liable for comprehensive tax payment in a Contracting State. However, the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty does not have any provision as to whether a resident is a resident, rather than an organization, with respect to income derived from an activity of a certain organization.

In exercising the right to impose taxes, when a source country applies a tax treaty, the source country shall comply with the domestic law of the source country unless otherwise stipulated in the tax treaty. Thus, in cases where a source country ought to be deemed a source country as the source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s place of taxation is not subject to the application of the tax treaty. However, in full view of the fact that a source country’s country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s income and its source country’s source country’s source country’s source country’s income can be treated as a comprehensive tax treaty.

Therefore, in a case where a German organization, which constitutes a “foreign corporation” under the Corporate Tax Act of Korea, constitutes a foreign corporation-invested organization that does not bear a comprehensive tax liability in Germany with respect to the income accrued in Korea, the scope that its members are liable for comprehensive tax liability in Germany with respect to the income accrued from the said organization falls under a German resident under the tax treaty, and the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty may be applied to the extent that its members are not liable for comprehensive tax liability in Germany among the income accrued from the Republic of Korea as the source country, to the extent that

However, in order to apply the 5% limited tax rate on dividend income pursuant to Article 10(2) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, the beneficial owner of the dividend income, i.e., the beneficial owner of the dividend income, shall be the resident who is the corporation. Article 3(1)(e) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty defines the corporation as “an organization corporate or an entity treated as a body corporate for tax purposes.” The term “corporation” as defined in the above provision refers to the taxable unit that bears the same comprehensive liability as corporate tax at the stage of an organization established in accordance with the law of the country where the organization is established. Therefore, if the German investment and taxation organization does not bear the same comprehensive liability as corporate tax under the German tax law, it cannot be deemed as “corporation” under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty. As such, with respect to dividend income derived from the Republic of Korea where the organization is the source country, the limited tax rate of 15% under Article 10(2)(b) of the Korea-U.S

㈏ 앞서 본 각 증거에 의하면, TMW는 독일 상법에 의하여 설립된 인적회사로서 단체의 구성원으로부터 독립된 별개의 권리·의무의 귀속주체인 사실, 그런데 TMW는 독일의 법인세법에 따른 법인세 납세의무가 없고 주소와 같은 장소적 관련성을 이유로 하는 포괄적인 납세의무라고 볼 수 없는 영업세법(Gewerbesteuergesetz)에 따른 영업세 납세의무만 있을 뿐이며 TMW에 귀속되는 소득에 관하여는 그 구성원이 직접 포괄적인 납세의무를 부담하는 사실, 한편 TMW의 구성원은 독일인, 오스트리아인 및 룩셈부르크인으로 이루어져 있는 사실 등을 알 수 있다.

Therefore, TPP, which falls under the “foreign corporation” under the Korean Corporate Tax Act, cannot be deemed as a “corporation” under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty unless it is a German investment-exempt organization and does not bear a comprehensive tax liability in Germany. As to the instant dividend income, the limited tax rate of 5% under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty cannot be applied. Only to the extent that its members bear a comprehensive tax liability in Germany, the limited tax rate of 15% can be applied as a “resident” under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, based on the premise that TPP is a resident with comprehensive tax liability in Germany and constitutes a "corporation" under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty.

【Tax Rate applicable to the dividend income of this case

㈎ 앞에서 본 바와 같이 TMW는 독일의 투과과세 단체로서 독일 세법에 따라 법인세와 같은 포괄적인 납세의무를 부담하지 않으므로 그 단체가 원천지국인 우리나라에서 얻은 배당소득에 대하여는 그 구성원이 독일에서 포괄적인 납세의무를 부담하는 범위에서 한·독 조세조약 제10조 제2항 (나)목에 따른 15%의 제한세율이 적용될 수 있다.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the members of TMW consist of Germany, Austria and Luxembourg, and comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence set forth above and the whole purport of the arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 38-1 through 11, Gap evidence No. 45-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 48, 52, and 53, the share ratio by the resident state of WT at the time of the payment of the dividend income in this case can be acknowledged as shown below, and the resident state of Germany can be recognized as having the comprehensive tax liability in Germany.

On April 2006, 2007.42% of Germany 95.42% of 83.97% of May 2008, 2008, 83.97% of 83.97% of 83.97% of Luxembourg 11.45% of 11.45% of 11.45% of Austria 11.45% of 45% of Austria 4.45% of 4.58% of 4.58% of 4.58% of 4.58% of 4.58% of 4.58% of 4.58% in total,100% of 10% of 100% of Luxembourg

Therefore, the tax rate to be applied at the time of withholding the dividend income in this case shall be the limited tax rate of 15% under the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty for the amount corresponding to the ratio of the German members at the time of their payment, and the tax rate of 25% under the Corporate Tax Act for the amount corresponding to the ratio of the members of Austria and Luxembourg.

㈏ 원고는 TMW의 구성원 중 룩셈부르크 거주자에 대하여는 한·룩셈부르크 조세조약, 오스트리아 거주자에 대하여는 한·오스트리아 조세조약에 따라 각 15%의 제한세율을 적용하여야 한다는 취지로 주장한다. 그러나 TMW가 투과과세단체로서 그 구성원들이 독일에서 포괄적인 납세의무를 부담하는 범위 내에서 한·독 조세조약 제10조 제2항 (나)목에 의하여 15%의 제한세율을 적용할 수 있는 것인데, TMW의 구성원 중 독일 거주자가 아닌 룩셈부르크 및 오스트리아 거주자가 독일에서 포괄적인 납세의무를 부담한다고 볼 수 없다. 비록 한·룩셈부르크 조약이나 한·오스트리아 조약이 한·독 조세조약과 동일한 규정을 두고 있다하여 달리 볼 것도 아니다. 이 부분 원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

㈐ 피고는 TMW가 GmbH 1, 2를 설립한 것은 조세회피를 위한 것이었으므로 한·독 조세조약 제27조 제2항에 따라 한·독 조세조약의 적용을 배제하여야 한다는 취지로 주장하나, 앞서 살펴본 사실에 의하면, GmbH 1, 2는 뚜렷한 사업목적이나 경제적 합리성 없이 배당지급에 관한 주식 또는 기타 권리를 창설한 것으로 볼 수 있으므로 GmbH 1, 2가 한·독 조세조약상의 혜택을 주장하는 것은 한·독 조세조약 제27조 제2항에 의하여 허용될 수 없다고 할 것이나, 실질과세원칙에 의하여 조세조약의 적용 여부를 판단한다면 중간 도관회사를 무시하여야 한다고 하더라도 그러한 도관회사를 설립한 투자펀드에 대하여는 조세조약의 혜택을 부여할 수 있다고 할 것인바, TMW는 이 사건 배당소득의 실질귀속자 또는 수익적 소유자로서 한·독 조세조약상의 혜택을 부여할 수 있다고 할 것이다. 따라서 피고의 이 부분 주장은 이유 없다.

x the due amount of tax

As seen earlier, the reasonable amount of tax calculated by reflecting the limited tax rate of 15% under Article 10(2)(b) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty for German residents among the members of the instant disposition is as follows.

68, 517, 420, 326, 626, 685, 90, 735, 867, 774, 774, 750, 857, 8294, 816, 921, 25, 207, 454, 867, 774, 750, 750, 462, 957, 829, 404, 816, 9216, 921, 257, 954, 429, 9329, 9332, 67, 208, 63636, 637, 208, 6365, 208, 257, 208, 2636, 2065, 2637, 2065

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the disposition of this case in excess of the above legitimate amount shall be revoked in an unlawful manner. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted only for the part exceeding the above legitimate amount, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair in conclusion, it shall be revoked in part of the defendant's appeal, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed, and the defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)