2. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, and KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of March 1, 201, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2008, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2009, KRW 216,403, and KRW 290 for each tax year 2010.

3. The plaintiff AA's primary claims and the remainder of the preliminary claims are all dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff BB Group and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff BB Group, and 4/5 of the part arising between the Plaintiff AA and the Defendant is borne by the Plaintiff AA, the remainder is borne by the Defendant, and the part arising from the participation is borne by the Intervenor A.

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim is that the Defendant imposed corporate tax of 000 won (including additional tax of 00 won), corporate tax of 2008 business year of 2008 (including additional tax of 000 won), corporate tax of 000 won (including additional tax of 000 won), corporate tax of 2009 business year of 2009, corporate tax of 2000 won (including additional tax of 000 won), corporate tax of 2010 business year of March 1, 201, value-added tax of 207 (including additional tax of 00 won), additional tax of 00 won for 1 year of 2008 (including additional tax of 00 won), additional tax of 00 won for 20 years of 2009, additional tax of 2000 won for 20 years of 2009 (including additional tax of 200 won for 20 years of 200).

Preliminary claim: The Defendant’s imposition of 00 won of corporate tax for the business year 2007, March 2, 201 (including additional tax of 000 won), 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2008 (including additional tax of 000 won), 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2009, 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2010, 000 won of corporate tax for the business year 2007, 000 won of value-added tax for the second period (including additional tax of 00 won), 00 won of value-added tax for the first period (including additional tax of 00 won), 200 won of value-added tax for the second period of 208, 2000 won of value-added tax for the second period of 2009 (including additional tax for the second period of 200 won), and 200 won of value-added tax for each 200% of value-added tax for the year 2000

A. The Plaintiff AA (hereinafter referred to as “AA”) is an entity specializing in casino solicitation, which is the Plaintiff BB Group’s OO affiliated company located in theO.

B. On June 30, 2007, Plaintiff AA entered into a contract with the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) operating a casino for exclusive use by foreigners, and Plaintiff AA entered into a license book (hereinafter “instant contract”) under which part (70%) of the amount of casino casino usage (70%’s gross sales by the Intervenor) is paid as a solicitation fee, instead of soliciting and arranging customers. The main contents are as follows (the term used in the instant contract refers to the term “rawling fee” that is paid regardless of the success or failure of the game to attract customers; and the term “compact” means that a casino operator provides customers free of charge with board and lodging, transportation services, golf expenses, other goods, services, etc. to attract customers).

C. The Plaintiff AA received 000 won (from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007: 00 won: from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; 000 won in the business year of 2008; 000 won in the business year of 2009; 000 won in the business year of 2009; 000 won in the business year of 2010: 00 won in the business year of 2010), but did not report and pay taxes.

D. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, upon conducting a tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiff AA from December 17, 2010 to February 28, 2011, determined that the Plaintiff: (a) opened an office on the 0th floor of the building located at the OOO O-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “office of this case”) of the Intervenor’s place of business; (b) held that the Plaintiff AA had engaged in activities such as solicitation of casino customers, game support, and joint settlement of game expenses; and (c) notified the Defendant of the amount of KRW 00 (the amount calculated by dividing the recruitment fees by 1.1) by the sum of the recruitment fees received from the Intervenor, excluding value-added tax (the sales fees, from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007: 00, 2000, 2009, 2009, 2009, 200, 201.

E. On March 2, 2007, the Defendant stated the Plaintiff AA, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007 (including additional tax), KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008 (including additional tax), KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009 (including additional tax), KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2010, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the business year 2007 (including additional tax), KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the business year 2007 (including additional tax), KRW 00 for each of the tax payment notices for the business year 200 (including additional tax for 00), KRW 00 for each of the tax payment notices for the 2000 (including additional tax for 200) and KRW 200 for each of the tax payment notices for the 2000 (including additional tax for 2000).

(f) On June 1, 201, the Plaintiff AA filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service on June 1, 201. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, from July 28, 2012 to December 2010, 2000 won (from July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007; KRW 000,000 for the business year 208; KRW 000 for the business year 2000 for the business year 2009; KRW 000 for the business year 2000 for the business year 2010; KRW 2000 for the business year 2010, the Plaintiff’s tax base and tax amount for each business year were corrected; and the rest of the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed. The Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the initial re-audit of the facts that the re-audit was without any reasonable ground, including Gap evidence No. 231, 2013.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

The other party to each of the dispositions in this case is Plaintiff AA, and the defendant does not have any disposition against Plaintiff BB Group, and thus, the lawsuit by Plaintiff BB is unlawful.

3. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Plaintiff AA’s assertion

(i) the first argument;

In the instant tax notice, the trade name (name) and (i) the taxpayer is called “BB Group CCC at the Republic of Korea,” and the instant tax notice alone cannot be seen as having been imposed on Plaintiff AA, and instead, it includes “BB group” in the trade name (name) and thus, Plaintiff BB group is understood as being liable for tax payment. CCC concurrently serves as the representative of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff BB group, and CCC is indicated in the trade name (name) of the instant tax notice, and thus, it cannot be identified as the taxpayer solely on the ground that CCC is indicated in the trade name (name) of the instant tax notice. The Defendant knew that Plaintiff AA was the Plaintiff AA in the course of the instant tax investigation with the supplementary participant, and the Defendant was aware of the fact that the party who entered into the instant contract with the supplementary participant was the Plaintiff AA in the process of the tax investigation with Plaintiff AA, and thus, the instant tax notice constitutes a case where the identity of the taxpayer could not be identified. Accordingly, each of the instant tax notice is unlawful, serious, and invalid.

(ii) the second argument;

In order for a permanent establishment to exist in the Republic of Korea, it must have a fixed place of business in the Republic of Korea and be subject to disposal authority for the said place of business through the fixed place of business. However, the office of this case is limited to a temporary provision by the Intervenor to all regular casino business operators, including the Plaintiff A, using an extra space, and the right to use the office of this case did not exist. ② The office of this case is not limited to the Plaintiff AA’s disposal authority, ② The office of this case was recruited directly or through many subordinate casino business operators except for the Republic of Korea other than the O,O,O,O, andO; the office of this case was provided by the Intervenor 2 to the Intervenor for more than 0 years after receiving fringt-mone money from the Intervenor; the office of this case was provided by the Intervenor 2 to the Intervenor for more than 20 years; the office of this case was provided to the Intervenor for more than 90 OM’s temporary establishment; and the office of this case was provided to the Intervenor for more than 90 O’s essential business activities.

(iii) the third assertion;

Even if the office of this case is a permanent establishment in the Republic of Korea of Plaintiff AA, it may be imposed as business income only on profits accrued to the office of this case under Article 7 of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the Republic of OOO for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter “the Tax Treaty”). Expenses incurred for the purpose of the office of this case shall be deducted without relation to the place of occurrence. However, the defendant considered that the collection fees received by Plaintiff AA received from the assisting participant constituted income belonging to the office of this case. However, it is merely limited to the provision of various convenience to the customer recruited outside of Korea, and it is not permissible to allow Plaintiff AA's main business activities conducted outside of Korea had absolute influence on the creation of income ( recruitment fees). In addition, since the part of the amount received by Plaintiff AA from the assisting participant was reverted to the customer, it should be excluded from the amount of value-added tax or recognized as losses.

4) The fourth argument

Among each of the dispositions in this case, the penalty tax is illegal since not only the type of penalty tax is different in a tax payment notice, but also the grounds for calculation are not specified.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The plaintiff AA made receipts, withdrawal certificates, credit cards, and confirmation certificates (Evidence B8) to the supplementary intervenor, and indicated himself/herself as "B-B-B-B company," "B-B company," "B-B company," and "B-B company," and the supplementary intervenor made the settlement statement, balance certificate (Evidence B-9) with the plaintiff AA, while the supplementary intervenor made the statement, balance certificate (Evidence B-9) with the plaintiff AB.

BI-B. In addition, the internal documents prepared by the supplementary intervenor, such as a record of the supplementary intervenor's entertainment, renegotiation of this case contract, are indicated as BB company, BB company, BI-BI company, and BB company, and the supplementary intervenor stated as BB's internal document prepared to lend the rolling chips to the plaintiff AA in accordance with Article 2 (5) of the contract of this case. (2) The defendant registered the name on December 20, 2010 as BB group, on the ground that the plaintiff AA did not operate the business with a permanent establishment in the Republic of Korea but did not operate the business. (7) July 1, 2007, the place of business of this case was located as the office of this case, and then the supplementary intervenor registered ex officio as the business operator under Article 2 (5) of the contract of this case.

3) On June 1, 201, Plaintiff AA filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service for each of the dispositions of this case on June 1, 201, and claimed that the office of this case is “OO of BB Group Group with its head office in O” in the supplementary statement submitted on December 26, 2012, and the office of this case is not a domestic permanent establishment, and even if not, the income belonging thereto is extremely minor, and among the amount received from the supplementary intervenor, the amount of rollering type should be excluded from income or recognized as losses, and in nature, it should be excluded from value-added tax base.

4) From January 2007 to September 2008, the supplementary participant company served as the new market development team leader from the supplementary participant company as the new market development team leader, and thereafter, on January 4, 2011, the EE serving as the head of the marketing headquarters international marketing team leader, which was investigated by the Seoul regional tax office, stated as follows:

Note: Does the private person in the contract at the time of the contract not required to have been involved in the contract with the ear BB.

The answer: Examples. At the time of the contract, the supplementary intervenor to the contract was a private person with FF, the representative director, and BB, the president of the Group and the group attorney-at-law were private persons.

The text: Where the BB head office is the head office, and what is the reasons why the contract is entered into with the Plaintiff AA located in the OO, not the head office, but the BB OO affiliate.

The answer: BB head office is known to O, and it is known that it has entered into a contract with the plaintiff AA, which is an O re-affiliated company to which the tax treaty has been entered into, even if it is prohibited from doing so.

: how the role of BB and the Intervenor is distinguished.

The answer: BB is responsible for the role of attracting customers at OO and transmitting them to the supplementary intervenor, and the supplementary intervenor is providing space and human resources that the relevant customer can play a game.

C. : BBB's independent game operation types will be expressed specifically by BB.

The answer: Upon receipt of money from customers recruited at the BB's head office to the OO, the chips have been provided to the customers at the BB site chip team dispatched to the supplementary participant, and the BB site chip team and the supplementary participant site chip team have been settled daily.

The sentence: How the settlement of the fee between the Intervenor and BB will be made.

The answer: At the end of each month, if all chips are delivered from BB to the on-site border team by the supplementary participant, then the supplementary participant's share is received at 30% after the settlement is completed and the remainder is returned to BB on-site border.

Note : for the year BB SP, whether the duties primarily were followed;

The answer: The customer confirms the amount deposited at the head office on the face of the customer, delivers the chip license to the customer, and plays a role in rolling to the customer.

C: BBB company's employees in the office in the Republic of Korea are average several persons, and how the work method is.

The answer: BB Employees will be deemed to have worked as three times a day for the employees dispatched from the BB head office and as employees employed in Korea.

GGGG of the BB staff of the Asi-si si-si si-si si-si si-si si-si.

The answer: Examples. GG appears to be the actual manager of the BB Korean office, and has executed customer contact, game (rawls), settlement of fees, work instructions with the head office, etc.

GGG, a BB employee, worked at any time, who is currently performing his work.

The answer: from the beginning of the first rollet game after the contract with the supplementary intervenor on June 2007, it is an employee dispatched from the head office BB to Korea, and thereafter, the second person is aware that the last day of December 2009 is entering into the place of his work.

d. The supplementary intervenor does not lend his office free of charge to the BB Group, and what is the reason why the supplementary intervenor does not have any office.

The answer: The reason why the office is used free of charge is that the whole of the assistant intervenor's office is used as a rental agreement, making it difficult for the assistant intervenor to hold office, and the casino industry such as OO generally uses it free of charge, and BB group is in the position of zero in the casino industry in OO, and it is known that the assistant intervenor has provided it free of charge for convenience, such as attracting customers to the maximum extent possible.

5) On June 16, 2008, GG, an employee of Plaintiff AA, expressed the contracting party as “BBB” while making a statement on the content, etc. of the instant contract concluded between Plaintiff AA and the Intervenor at the Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office.

6) From July 2007, 2007, 15 employees of Plaintiff A were working for 3 bridges per day (average 4 to 5 employees per day) from the instant office.

7) At the time of the tax investigation, the office of this case had seven books, seven computer units, one credit cooperative for cash storage, one credit cooperative for chips for chips, three cashnets, three attendance cards, one attendance card size, etc. In addition, at the office of this case, the Plaintiff AA prepared and managed a customer’s personal game settlement card by stating the customer’s name, chip discount, chip set amount, chip software, balance, signature, loan details, etc. in the office of this case.

8) On January 3, 2011, in order to determine the tax base and amount of corporate tax by January 17, 201, Plaintiff AA was requested by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to prepare and submit a detailed statement of expenses incurred by related cost, etc., but did not submit it. On February 9, 2011, Plaintiff AA again requested the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to submit the relevant cost and expenses incurred by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office until February 14, 2011, but did not submit it. After the re-audit process, Plaintiff AA requested the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office to submit the aforementioned data on several occasions on the grounds that the submission of data takes a considerable time to collect and submit overseas materials. Accordingly, Plaintiff AA did not submit any such data.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 through 12

Re-videos, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the first argument

A) In imposing a tax by a tax payment notice, the taxpayer’s indication must be objectively determined in accordance with the formal description of the tax payment notice, and if the taxpayer’s indication in the tax payment notice is not clear enough to identify the taxpayer’s identity, the service by the tax payment notice shall not have the effect as a lawful tax payment notice (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Du6632, Jan. 28, 2010).

B) We examine the following. ① With respect to the instant contract, Plaintiff AB entered itself as “BB (g)” in relation to the Intervenor. The Intervenor also indicated Plaintiff AB as “BB (g)” and stated Plaintiff BB’s English name in the following common part: ② The Intervenor’s employee, at the time of the investigation conducted by Seoul Regional Tax Office, stated that the Intervenor entered into the instant contract with Plaintiff AB as an agent, not the Plaintiff BB group, but the Plaintiff’s agent, who was the party to the instant contract, was not the Plaintiff’s agent at the time of the investigation conducted by the Seoul Regional Tax Office, but the Plaintiff’s agent, who was the party to the instant contract, was not the Plaintiff’s agent at the time of the conclusion of the tax agreement with the Plaintiff AB, and that the Plaintiff’s agent, who was the party to the instant contract, was not the party to the instant tax investigation, and that the Plaintiff’s agent, who was the employee of the Plaintiff AB, was the party to the instant contract at its own discretion and was not the party to the instant tax investigation.

2) As to the second argument

A) The former part of Article 7(1) of the tax treaty of this case provides that “The profit of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxed only in that other Contracting State unless the enterprise runs a business in that other Contracting State through a permanent establishment located in that other Contracting State,” and Article 5(1) provides that “a permanent establishment for the purpose of this treaty refers to a fixed place of business in which the business of the enterprise is operated entirely or partially.” On the other hand, Article 9(3)(b) of the tax treaty of this case provides that “a provision of services, including advisory services, provided by the enterprise through its employees or other employees, including such services, shall be a permanent establishment only if such activities continue for a single or several period exceeding 183 days in total in the territory of the Contracting State, and Article 7(4) provides that “a permanent establishment shall be deemed not to include:

In light of the language, purport, etc. of the above provisions, in order for an OO corporation to have a permanent establishment in the Republic of Korea, an employee of the OO corporation or a person under such instruction must perform essential and important business activities, not preliminary or auxiliary business activities, through the "fixed place of business, such as domestic buildings, facilities, equipment, etc., where the OO corporation has the authority to dispose of or use", and the determination of whether it is an essential and important business activities should be made by comprehensively taking into account the nature and scale of the business activities, the importance and role of the entire business activities, etc.

B) In light of the aforementioned facts, the following circumstances revealed: (a) Plaintiff AA had the Plaintiff AA use the instant office free of charge; (b) the Plaintiff AA had the right to use the instant office; and (c) under the instant contract, Plaintiff AA would be deemed to have the right to use the instant office; and (b) Plaintiff AA would have paid 70% of its sales to the Intervenor in the event that the customer recruited the games at the casino of the Intervenor, and sales have occurred to the Intervenor, through the settlement with the Intervenor; and (c) Plaintiff AA would not only have the customer recruited abroad, but also have the game without any inconvenience to the customer in the casino.

(3) Plaintiff AA’s assertion that Plaintiff AA’s office of this case constituted Plaintiff A’s domestic business based on the following reasons: (a) Plaintiff AA’s performance of duties, such as hotel, casino, and casino business guidance, and money exchange (chips exchange); and (b) settlement with Intervenor A appears to constitute an essential and important business activity, not preliminary or auxiliary business activities; and (c) Plaintiff AAA’s performance of duties, such as guidance on hotel, casino (chips exchange); and (b) Plaintiff AA’s performance of duties, such as guidance on hotel, casino (chips exchange); and (c) Plaintiff AA’s performance of duties, such as settlement of accounts, against customers from around 200 to December 31, 201, which was closed from July 2007, by around 15, 2010.

3) As to the third argument

A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of corporate tax, the burden of proving the tax base, which is the basis of taxation, is the tax authority, and the tax base is the basis of deducting necessary expenses from revenue, so the tax authority has the burden of proving the amount of income, necessary expenses, and expenses to be included in deductible expenses, or the amount of necessary expenses or expenses to the taxpayer is favorable to the taxpayer, and most of the facts generating the tax are located in the area under the control of the taxpayer, and thus the burden of proving the non-existence of the necessary expenses or expenses must be presumed. Such presumption of non-existence should be accepted by allowing the

Recognizing the necessity of proof to taxpayers is consistent with the concept of fairness.

However, while Plaintiff AA must deduct all expenses incurred for the purpose of the instant office pursuant to Article 7 of the Tax Treaty without relation to the place where the occurrence occurred, each of the dispositions of this case, which were determined as income amount attributed to the instant office by the Intervenor, is unlawful since the business activities conducted overseas had an absolute influence on income creation. Of the amount received from the Intervenor, the part of the rollerer which was paid for the purpose of the instant office belongs to the customer, which was excluded from the income amount or recognized as losses. However, Plaintiff AA did not prove all of the expenses incurred for the purpose of the instant office and the part of the roller out of the amount received from the Intervenor, which was received from the Intervenor.

B) Meanwhile, a discount amount that is not included in the tax base under the Value-Added Tax Act is the discount amount for the supply value after the supply of goods or services, and it refers to the amount at which the outstanding amount of the proceeds from supply for credit sales is paid or the outstanding amount of the proceeds from supply is received before the agreed date. Thus, Article 13(2)6 of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11873, Jun. 7, 2013); Article 52(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23595, Feb. 2, 2012); and Article 52(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act does not constitute a roller.

C) Therefore, Plaintiff AA’s above assertion is without merit.

4) As to the fourth argument

A) When the principal tax and the additional tax are to be imposed along with a tax payment notice, the individual tax amount and the basis for calculation thereof should be stated in the tax payment notice separately. In a case where multiple types of additional tax are to be imposed, it is reasonable for the taxpayer to have the details of each tax disposition known by classifying the amount and the basis for calculation thereof by the type of the additional tax, even if each of the additional tax is imposed, so that the taxpayer can be aware of the details of each tax disposition by itself.

The imposition of a tax notice shall not be exempt from being unlawful: Provided, That even if there is any defect in which matters required by relevant statutes are omitted, if it is evident that a taxpayer is not at all impeded the decision of whether to object to the disposition and the appeal of dissatisfaction because all necessary matters are already stated in the notice of tax notice, etc. sent by the tax authority prior to the taxation disposition, the defect in the notice of tax payment may be supplemented or cured (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

B) In full view of the purport of the argument as a whole, it can be acknowledged that the tax payment notice of this case contains only the amount of additional tax, and that the basis for calculation of additional tax is not specified. As such, the relevant statutes and regulations apply to the tax payment notice of additional tax of this case.

There is no reason to deem that there is a defect, such as omission of descriptions required in the instant disposition, and that the defect was supplemented or cured. Therefore, the penalty part of each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

5) Sub-committee

Therefore, among each of the dispositions in this case made by the Defendant against Plaintiff A, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2008, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2009, KRW 000 of the corporate tax for the business year 2007, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of March 1, 201, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the first period of 2008, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2008, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 209, KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 209, KRW 000 of the value-added tax for the second period of 209, and KRW 00 of the value-added tax for the second period of 2010 should be revoked.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff BB Group's lawsuit of this case is unlawful, and it is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff AA's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit. The preliminary claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is accepted as it is reasonable, and the remainder is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.