2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 1/20 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

(a) Status of the parties;

On July 21, 2000, the Plaintiff is a domestic corporation of the △△△△△ established in the Do community by investing 50% each in each of the 50% by the Dol-KDB located in the Korea Development Bank and the Doldong State (hereinafter referred to as the “ML-KDB”).

(b) Acquisition of non-performing loans, etc. and issuance of bonds-backed securities;

1) On July 21, 200, the Plaintiff purchased from the Korea Development Bank about KRW 340.6 billion at a par value of KRW 903.6 billion. On the same day, the Plaintiff issued bonds-backed securities (ABS) with bond-backed securities (ABS) with the maturity of seven years equivalent to the US dollars of KRW 292.1 billion based on the underlying asset of the above bonds, etc. on the same day.

"2) 한국산업은행과 ML-KDB는 채권형 유동화증권을 각 50%씩 인수하였고, 한국산 업은행은 2001. 5. 30. 아일랜드법인인 ★★인터네셔날○○리미티드(★★★ International Finance Limited., 이하 '★★IF'라 한다)에 위 채권형 유동화증권을 매도하였다.",다. 원고의 ★★IF에 대한 이자 지급내역

원고는 ★★IF에 대하여 위 채권형 유동화증권에 대한 이자로 아래와 같은 금액을 지급 하였다.

D. The Plaintiff’s insurance claim transaction

1) On July 21, 200, the Plaintiff purchased the non-performing loans worth KRW 15.5 billion at a face value of KRW 2.6 billion from the Korea Development Bank to △△△, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as △△△△), but sold to the 21st restructuring company in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) on March 8, 2001, the Plaintiff received KRW 470 million as the down payment from △△△ on the date of the contract, and paid the remainder KRW 4.23 billion as the down payment from △△△△, and received the down payment from △△△ on the same day.

2) 그 후 ☆☆이 2002년 중반에 ★★IF로부터 매수한 부실채권의 이자와 관련하여 법인세 원천징수세 942,859,000원을 추정당하게 되자, 원고는 2002. 12. 31. ☆☆으로 부터 잔금 42억 3,000만 원을 지급받은 다음, 그 즉시 ☆☆에 대하여 원천징수세액 942,859,000원을 되돌려 주었다.

(e) Tax investigation of 00 regional tax office;

1) From February 4, 2003 to June 13, 2003, the ○○ Regional Tax Office conducted the Plaintiff’s general investigation of corporate tax (hereinafter “first investigation”) for the business year from July 7, 2000 to December 31, 2002, and estimated the omitted portion of interest income source according to the determination of beneficial owner.

2) In addition, from July 7, 2005 to October 31, 2005, the ○○ Regional Tax Office conducted an integrated investigation into corporate taxes (hereinafter referred to as “second tax investigation”) for the business year from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004.

3) ○○지방국세청장은, (1) 2000년에 부실채권 및 리스채권을 기초자산으로 유동화를 실시한 국내의 유동화전문회사중 채권형 유동화증권을 선 ・ 후순위 모두 특수관계가 없는 자에게 공모발행 방식으로 발행한 14개 업체의 채권형 유동화증권 발행 이자율을 비교거래(이하 '이 사건 비교거래'라 한다)로 선정하고, 국제조세조정에 관한 법률(이하 '국제조세법'이라 한다) 제5조 제1항 및 같은 법 시행령(2004. 12. 31. 대통령령 제18628 호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제5조 제1항 제1호 나목에 의하여 ① 발행시기,② 발행형식(사모와 공모), ③ 발행통화,・ 자산가치 대비 대출비용(LTV), ④ 만기,⑤신용보강 여부 등에 대하여 원고의 채권형 유동화증권 발행 이자율과의 차이를 합리적으로 조정하여, 그 결과 중위값인 13.31%를 정상이자율로 산정한 다음, 원고가 국외특수관계자인 ★★IF에 지급한 채권형 유동화증권에 대한 이자율이 국제조세법 제5조에서 정한 정상이자율보다 높다고 보아, 위 13.31%를 초과하는 부분인 아래 표 기재와 같은 금액을 각 손금불산입하고, (2) 원고가 □□채권의 대금에 관하여 반환한 원천징수세액 상당의 942,859,000원 은 법인세법 시행령 제35조 제1호에 정한 비지정기부금에 해당한다고 보아 이를 손금불산입하여, 2005. 10. 14. 피고에 대하여, 원고의 2002, 2003 사업연도의 법인세가 합계 56억 원 상당에 해당한다는 내용의 세무조사결과를 통보하였다.

(f)the imposition disposition of corporate tax by the defendant;

The defendant was notified by the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office of the results of the above tax investigation, and each disposition of KRW 5,450,731,770 and corporate tax of KRW 157,069,480 for business year 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the "each disposition of this case").

(g) Procedures for the previous trial;

On January 13, 2006, the plaintiff requested the National Tax Tribunal for a trial on January 13, 2006, but the National Tax Tribunal made a request.

9.21. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1 to 4, 6 to 13, Eul 1, 2 (including above numbers), and previous pleadings

Purpose of body.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Defendant’s imposition of each of the instant dispositions is unlawful.

1) Regarding the principle of prohibition of double tax investigations

Of the dispositions in this case, the part concerning the business year 2002 is illegal based on the secondary tax investigation conducted by the duplicate tax investigator with regard to the same tax items as the primary tax investigation and the period of the previous tax investigation.

2) The calculation of the normal interest rate

가) 원고의 국내법인인 한국산업은행에 대한 채권형 유동화증권 발행은 국내법인 간의 거래이고, 한국산업은행의 ★★IF에 대한 채권형 유동화증권 양도는 국외특수관계가 없는 자 간의 거래이므로, 이 사건 거래에 대하여는 국제조세법이 적용되지 않는다.

B) Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the International Tax Adjustment Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18628, Dec. 31, 2004) provides that an international transaction shall be a comparative transaction in cases where a taxation is adjusted by a comparable third party’s price method. Thus, the instant comparative transaction, a domestic transaction, cannot be a comparative transaction that serves as the basis for computing the arm’s length price.

C) Even if the comparison transaction of this case can be the comparison transaction stipulated in the above laws and regulations, since the comparison transaction of this case shows a remarkable difference in the Plaintiff’s transaction area, underlying assets, issuance method, maturity, guarantee, issue currency, issue date, time of issuance, preemptive and subordinated structure, etc. with the Plaintiff’s bond-backed securities, it cannot be considered as the comparison transaction for calculating the arm’s length price even if a certain difference has been adjusted, and the difference is not reasonable.

3) Part on reduction of △△ bonds

The Plaintiff is not a non-designated donation because it is recognized that the payment of the △△ Claim was properly reduced between the Plaintiff and the △△△△△△.

B. Facts of recognition

"1) ★★★ Fund II, mms.), L.P.(이하 구별 없이★★F'라 한다)는 각 미국 델라 웨어주법에 따라 설립된 리미티드 파트너쉽(Limited Partnership)이고, ★★IF는 아일랜드 법률에 의하여 설립된 외국법인이다. 원고, ★★IF, ML-KDB 등은 ★★ 펀드에 의하여 설립되어 ★★ 펀드가 지배력을 갖는 법인들이고, ★★ 펀드는 국내 부실채권의 투자와 관련하여 ★★★ Advisors Korea, LLC(이하 '▷▷K'라 한다)와 ■■ Korea, Inc.(이하□□'라 한다)를 설립 ・ 운영하였는데, ▷▷K는 ★★ 펀드가 한국에 투자하는 부실채권의 물색 및 투자결정을 주된 사업으로 수행하였고, □□는 ★★ 펀드가 설립한 유동화전문회사의 자산관리 및 수탁업무를 주된 사업으로 수행하였다.",2) ○○지방국세청장은 원고를 포함한 ▷▷K, □□ 등 ★★ 펀드와 관련된 2M 회사에 대한 제1차 세무조사를 통보하면서 조사대상 회사들에게, 모회사 및 국내외 관계 회사의 조직도, 출자흐름도, 재무제표 및 감사보고서, 세무조정계산서 및 결산서, 국외특수관계자와의 거래시 적용한 이전가격 관련 서류(정상가격 산출근거 포함), 자산평가 관련서류, 자산취득 및 매각계약서, 금융감독기관에 제출한 서류(유동화계획등록신청서 ・ 자산양도등록신청서 및 각 관련 서류), 채권형 유동화증권별 발행흐름도 및 발행내역, 자산관리 위탁계약 관련 서류, 원리금 및 배당금 지급 관련 서류, 발행비용 및 액면이자율 산출 근거서류 등의 자료를 준비할 것을 요구하였고, 제1차 세무조사 중에는 ★★IP의 장기부채(Loan payable) 관련 대부자(채권자) 명단과 각각의 이자지급 내역(관계회사 및 제 3자 포함), ★★IF의 Operating Income 산출과정을 알 수 있는 구체적언 설명자료(예컨대 자금투자시 수취이자율과 투자금액 명세, 자금차입시 지급이자율과 차입금액 명세) 등의 제출을 요구하였다 원고는 위 서류들을 모두 제출하였고, 이전가격 측면에서 채권형 유동화증권의 이자율이 적정하다는 취지의 구체적인 의견서를 제출하기도 하였다.

3) On October 22, 2003, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office notified the Plaintiff of the result of each tax investigation. The main content is to estimate the omission of interest income pursuant to the determination of beneficial owner and notify the expected amount of tax equivalent to KRW 881,319,000 to corporate tax (interest income tax) for 200 business years, and did not state that each interest rate on bond-backed asset does not constitute the arm’s length price.

4) ○○지방국세청은 2005. 4. 12. ★★ 펀드 계열 국내 회사들이 위치한 ○○ ○○구 ○○동 737 ○○○○센터 30층에 세무조사공무원들을 보내 ★★ 펀드가 국내 투자를 위하여 설립한 법인들에 대한 대대적인 특별세무조사에 착수하였다 당시 세무조사 대상으로 정식 통보된 법인은 ▷▷K. □□. ▽▽유동화전문 유한회사, ◁◁ 유동화전문 유한회사, △△, 스타프로퍼티매지지먼트 주식회사 등 6개의 유동화전문회사였으나, 실제로는 원고를 포함한 ★★ 펀드 계열의 국내 유동화전문회사들과 관련된 전반적인 장부 및 서류 일체를 제출받거나 영치하였다.

5) After that, on June 30, 2005, the director of the regional tax office of ○○○○ may officially request the Plaintiff to prepare data, such as the corporate tax return, accounting books, documents related to the acquisition of securitization assets, documents related to the issuance of securitization-backed securities, evidence of the application for the registration of securitization plan, documents related to the issuance of securitization-backed securities, documents related to the collection of securitization assets, and documents related to the transfer of securitization assets (including the collection details by each claim), etc., from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004, and from July 7, 2005 to August 25, 2005, the investigation period was conducted from July 31, 2005 to August 31, 2005, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 7314, Jul. 31, 2005; Act No. 7320, Oct. 31, 2005>

6) ○○지방국세청 소속 세무조사공무원은 2005.8.30 하나은행의 대출담당자였던 AA석 팀장을 방문조사하였는데, AA석은 '★★ 펀드가 설립한 국내 유동화전문회사 의 대출과 관련된 문제를 □□의 회계팀 김BB 이사와 논의해 오던 중 ★★IF에게 자금을 대출하였고, 당시 ★★IF와 직접 대출조건을 논의하거나 ★★IF의 신용도를 고려한 적이 없으며, 국내 유동화전문회사가 보유한 부실채권의 회수가능성을 개별적으로 확인하여 대출가능 여부를 검토하였다'는 취지로 진술하였다,

7) On the other hand, among the data submitted by △△ in the second tax investigation process, the content of e-mail of DoD, stating that "the head of △△ accounting team sent to 2 persons such as DoDD in charge of fund management on November 25, 2002, the specific status of stock security of the special purpose company, its known scope of security, if any, and whether a loan has been fully paid, could have been disposed of as no stock security by concluding the first agreement of borrowing," and that "in the case of the remainder other than Doone Star, all domestic funds are provided as security and, in the case of a special purpose company, it is known that the stocks are offered as security and registered in the securitization plan are registered in the securitization plan," includes the content of e-mail of DoD.

8) As seen earlier, in imposing each of the instant dispositions on the Plaintiff on October 14, 2005, the specific details that calculated the normal interest rate by selecting comparable third party price method are as follows.

A) Selection of the instant non-party transactions

In 200 and 2001, the details of issuance of bonds-backed securities by the domestic special purpose company that has conducted the dynamicization of non-performing loans and license bonds based on underlying assets are as listed in the table below. Among them, the Defendant did not select the subject of comparison because all of the cases are privately placed in the same manner as the Plaintiff constitutes transactions between related parties. ② The Plaintiff issued bonds-backed securities in 2000, and 14 companies issued bonds-backed securities by public offering to non-related parties. Accordingly, the Defendant selected the interest rate of the bonds-backed securities by the aforesaid 14 companies as the comparative transactions.

B) the adjustment to compute the normal interest rate;

(1) The difference between publication fraud

The defendant issued bonds-backed securities in 2000 and stable LIBOR (LIBOR) which is the market interest rate in the year 2000 where the plaintiff issued bonds-backed securities. As such, there is no significant difference in the time of issuance in terms of the time of issuance, the defendant did not adjust the difference according to the time of issuance.

(b) The difference between public offering and private placement;

The Defendant calculated the difference between the return on public offering of new and outstanding bonds of class A AA and the return on private offering (1-1.5%) as of the time when the Plaintiff issued the bond-backed securities on the Internet homepage (www.kssa.or.kr) and the return on private offering, and adjusted the difference between the return on public offering of new and outstanding bonds of class AA with the maturity of three years as of the time when the Plaintiff issued the bond-backed securities by the Korea Securities Association (www.ks.s.or.r.) under the premise that the risk burden upon acceptance is relatively higher than the underwriter in the management status of the issuer, etc.

(3) The difference between the issued currencies

The Defendant: (a) collected the cash from the underlying assets in Korean won and paid the principal and interest of the bond-backed asset in foreign currency; (b) on the other hand, in the case of the instant comparative transaction, the Plaintiff recovered the cash in Korean currency and paid the principal and interest in Korean currency; (c) on the premise that the Plaintiff was exposed to exchange risk; and (d) on the premise that hedge transactions are conducted to avoid exchange risk, the additional costs incurred (i.e., the average difference between the transaction price at maturity of the instant comparative transaction and the rate of return on government bonds) were calculated and added to the interest rate for the instant comparative transaction.

(4) The difference between the value of LTV to be added;

The Defendant issued bonds-backed securities in a single order without a prior priority or subordinate distinction between the acquisition value of the securitization assets. However, in the case of the instant comparative transactions, it is difficult to directly compare funds through the issuance of bonds-backed bonds-backed securities with 40-80%, and if the Plaintiff makes a decision with economic rationality, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to directly compare funds through the issuance of bonds-backed securities with 40-80%, on the premise that interest expenses to be paid in comparison with the issue value of the total bonds-backed securities (unclaimed amount) would be fixed, under the premise that the interest rate would be paid in comparison with the issue value of the bonds-backed securities (unclaimed amount) would increase, and the default risk increases. The Plaintiff calculated the amount of bonds-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities (i.e., interest rate difference between the total amount of bonds-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-backed securities-related funds-related funds-related funds-related funds-based.

(v)the maturity difference;

Since the Defendant’s interest rate is higher due to the maturity of the bonds with a maturity of time exposed to risks, it is reasonable to reasonably adjust the bonds-type asset-backed securities issued by the Plaintiff where there exists a difference between the maturity of the instant comparative transaction and that of the instant comparative transaction, under the premise that it is reasonable to reasonably adjust the bonds-type asset-backed securities issued by the Plaintiff, on the basis of the results of analyzing the anticipated cash flow data, etc. submitted at the time of the tax investigation, deeming that the maturity of the instant comparative transaction is seven years, and that it is not more than five years, and the maturity of five years is set at the maturity of six months to ten years. As the bond-backed securities for the instant comparative transaction is the bond-backed securities with the maturity of non-guaranteed corporate bonds (AAA grade), the difference (0.4-1.6%) depending on the maturity date publicly notified by the Korea Securities Dealers Association (0.

(6) The difference between credit guarantee and

The Defendant issued through private placement and did not strengthen external credit (referring to the measures to be taken to cope with the risks of investors in bond-backed securities through credit offering by the credit reinforcement agency) while, on the premise that most of the instant comparative transactions were paid for additional fees by means of public offering, and reinforced external credit, the Defendant adjusted the instant comparative transactions by deeming the fees to be additionally borne by the business trustee for the purpose of strengthening external credit (credit extension fees are diverse depending on the credit extension provider, but at the average of 01-0.2% at the time of converting them into interest rate) as additional interest rate.

C. Calculation of the normal interest rate

(a) range of arm’s length price and calculation of normal interest rate;

As the criteria for determining whether to adjust the transfer price, the Defendant used private law as shown below, and calculated 13.31% of the highest value as the normal interest rate for the interest rate of the Plaintiff’s bond-backed securities.

(2) Review of the interest rate of bonds-backed securities issued through private placement by foreign investment companies;

From 200 to 2001, the Defendant reviewed the weighted average interest rate of six companies issued in 2000 and 117ij companies issued in 2001 as above, and examined the weighted average interest rate of 13.10% (1.94%-14.16%) in 2000 and 10.89% in 201 (10.74% in 10-13.13% in 201) in 2001, in order to determine the appropriateness of 13.31% in 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 6 through 16, 20, 21, 22, 24 through 26, Eul 3 through 8, 10 evidence (including above numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

C. Determination

1) Whether the second tax audit violates the principle prohibiting duplicate tax audits

A) Whether a double tax investigation constitutes a double tax investigation

(1) The term "tax investigation" means an act of asking questions to taxpayers, etc. as necessary in the course of performing their duties and investigating related documents, books, and other things or ordering them to submit them by exercising the right of questioning and questioning and questioning as prescribed by each tax-related Act (see, e.g., Article 122 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 170 of the Income Tax Act, Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs (amended by Act No. 8139, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 81-3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007); Article 63-2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19893, Feb. 28, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 13 of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation.

Therefore, in full view of relevant provisions, it is reasonable to view that, unless it falls under exceptional cases prescribed in Article 81-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes and each subparagraph of Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, duplicate tax investigations are not permitted, and where it is confirmed that a duplicate tax investigation is conducted after commencement of a tax investigation, the tax authority shall take necessary measures, such as withdrawal of investigation and withdrawal of the investigation team and the withdrawal of the investigation team (Article 13(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs). (Article 13(3) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs may not re-examine the part of the investigation conducted under the pretext of a complete investigation (Article 13(3) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs): Provided, That the duties that can be conducted only by simple fact-finding without undergoing a tax investigation among the data on suspicion, disguised processing data, identification of the fact of a taxpayer's customer or his/her counterpart to the tax investigation, processing of tax evasion reports, etc.

② 이 사건에 관하여 보면, 앞서 본 바와 같이 ㉮ ○○지방국세청장은 2003. 2. 4.부터 2003. 6. 13.까지 약 4개월 동안 제1차 세무조사를 하면서 원고를 비롯한 ★★ 펀드와 관련된 회사 전체에 대한 전반적인 자료를 요구하여 이를 모두 제출받고, 특히 ★★IF에 대 하여는 원고가 발행한 채권형 유동화증권에 대한 투자금 등 투자금액명세서 및 수취이자율, 차입금액명세서 및 지급이자율에 대한 자료를 제출받아 채권형 유동화증권의 이자율이 이전가격 측면에서 적정한지 여부에 대하여 심도있게 조사한 것으로 보이는 점, ㉯ 또한 ○○지방국세청장은 2005. 4. 12. ★★ 펀드 계열의 법인들에 대한 대대적인 특별세무조사에 착수하면서 원고를 제외한 몇몇 유동화전문회사 등을 세무조사 대상법인으로 정하여 통보하였으나, 실제로는 위와 같이 조사대상으로 통보한 법인뿐만 아니라 원고를 포함한 ★★ 펀드 계열의 다른 국내 유동화전문회사들과 관련된 장부 및 서류 일체를 제출받아 조사하였고, 그 제출된 자료에는 유동화전문회사들의 채권형 유동화증권의 이자율에 관련된 자료도 포함되었던 것으로 보이는 점,㉰ 제2차 세무조사 당시 세무공무 원들은 원고에 대하여 제1차 세무조사 대상기간인 2000. 7. 7.부터 2002. 12. 31.까지의 사업연도에 대한 조사에서 이미 보관하고 있던 자료를 검토하거나 단순한 사실확인 등 현지확인을 하는 것에 그치지 아니하고, 제1차 세무조사 대상기간에 대하여도 '범칙조사' 란 명목으로 추가로 자료를 제출받아 조사하였던 점 등에 비추어 보면, ○○지방국세청장이 제1차 세무조사와 제2차 세무조사에 착수하게 된 동기 내지는 계기가 다르다고 하더라도, 그 세무조사의 세목과 기간이 중첩되는 2002 사업연도에 대한 제2차 세무조사는 중복 세무조사에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

B) Whether it constitutes exceptional grounds for permission under Article 81-3(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes

(1) Whether there are errors in connection with two or more business years; or

In a case where there are errors in connection with two or more business years of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that this should be strictly interpreted as an exceptional reasons for permission that makes it possible to conduct a duplicate tax investigation, and if the same errors in relation to the same two or more business years of the above provision are included in the case where the same errors occur repeatedly in each business year, even though the tax adjustment for one business year does not have any influence on the tax adjustment for other business years, it is inevitable to allow duplicate tax investigation even if the tax adjustment for one business year does not necessarily have any influence on the tax adjustment for the other business years, and it is difficult to clarify the reason for the prohibition of duplicate tax investigation that is to prevent arbitrary abuse by the tax authorities and to promote legal stability. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to interpret that the tax adjustment for one business year is inevitably permitted to inevitably duplicate tax investigation for the other business year, thereby affecting the tax adjustment for the other business year.

Therefore, the director of ○○ Regional Tax Office from January 1, 2002 to 204

12. In conducting the second tax investigation on up to 31. 31., even if it was found that there was an error in calculating the interest rate by an excessive agreement, etc., the second tax investigation cannot be conducted in duplicate for the business year 2002, the period subject to the first tax investigation, as long as the tax adjustment due to an error in calculating the interest rate can be separated by business year. Thus, the second tax investigation does not constitute an exception under the above provision.

(2) Whether there is "where there is hard evidence corroborating the suspicion of tax evasion"

In the case of "where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion" referred to in the above provision, it refers to the case where there is an obvious material to justify the overlapping tax investigation, which is already existing before the duplicate tax investigation is conducted.

In this case, in light of the following circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the second tax investigation is "where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion" only with the descriptions of 3-1 and 2 of evidence Nos. 3-2, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the second tax investigation does not constitute an exception under the above provision.

① 피고가 주장하는 CC문과 강DD 사이의 이메일 교환 내용(을 3호증의 1)은 그 내용상 ★★ 펀드가 과소자본을 이용한 조세회피행위를 한 것으로 추정하게 할 만한 부분이 있다고는 할 것이나, 위와 같은 이메일 교환 내용은 조세회피를 하려는 시도에 그치고 이로 인하여 명백하게 조세탈루가 이루어졌다는 자료가 확보된 것은 아니라고 할 것이다.

② 또한, 피고가 주장하는 AA석과의 문답서(을 3호증의 2)는 하나은행의 입장에서 ★★rF에게 자금을 대여하게 된 경위 및 과정, 이자율 등 대여조건에 관한 것에 불과하다.

③ The Defendant secured the aforementioned data and secured the said data in the process of conducting the secondary tax investigation, rather than commencing the secondary tax investigation.

C) Whether a disposition based on a tax investigation that violates the principle of prohibition of double tax investigation is legitimate

In light of the fact that the principle of prohibition of double tax investigation aims to prevent taxpayers from infringing their business freedom and privacy and to guarantee taxpayers' rights in a procedural aspect through prior control over arbitrary tax investigation, taxation based on a tax investigation that violates the principle of prohibition of double tax investigation is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12070, Jun. 2, 2006).

(d)Indivates

따라서 이 사건 각 처분 중 2002 사업연도 법인세 부과처분 중 원고가 정상이자율인 13.31%를 초과하여 ★★rF에 이자를 지급하였다고 보아 2002 사업연도 3.625.637.692원을 손금불산입하여 계산한 부분은 위법하다.

2) Determination as to the legitimacy of calculating the normal interest rate

A) Whether the international tax law is applied

Article 4 (1) of the International Tax Law provides that when one of the parties to an international transaction is a foreign related party, if the transaction price falls short of or exceeds the arm's length price, the resident's tax base and tax amount can be determined or corrected on the basis of the arm's length price. Article 2 (1) 1 of the International Tax Law provides that "international transaction" means a transaction in which either or both parties to a transaction are nonresidents or foreign corporations, such as trading or leasing tangible or intangible assets, providing services, lending or borrowing money, and all other transactions related to profits or losses and assets of the parties.

이 사건에서, 비록 원고가 채권형 유동화증권을 발행한 것은 ★★IF가 아니라, 국내법인 인 한국산업은행이라 할 것이지만, 위 국제조세법에서 정한 '국제거래'는 그 문언상 직접적인 계약관계를 의미하는 '계약'이 아닌 좀 더 포괄적인 법률관계를 포함하는 '거래'로 규정한 점, 위 법 제2조 제1항 제1호의 정의상 '기타 거래자의 손익 및 자산에 관련된 모든 거래'도 포함하고 있는 점, 국제거래는 일반적으로 국내계약과 달리 여러 단계의 계약 관계가 하나의 경제적 이해관계를 해결하기 위하여 형성되어 일률적으로 그 계약 또는 거래 내용을 확정할 수 없어 직접 계약관계를 형성한 당사자 사이의 거래만을 법 적용 대상으로 한다면 특수관계 및 법인격을 이용한 다단계 및 우회 거래를 통하여 국가간의 조세회피를 방지하고자 하는 국제조세법의 입법취지가 몰각될 수 있는 점, 원고와 한국산업은행과의 관계, 원고와 ★★IF와의 관계 및 이자 지급 내역 등을 종합하면, 원고가 ★★IF에 대하여 채권형 유동화증권의 채권자와 채무자의 관계에서 이자를 지급한 거래는 국제조세법이 적용되는 거래에 해당한다고 할 것이다.

B) Whether the selection of comparative transactions in the instant case is lawful

(1) The arm's length price computation method and selection criteria;

(A) Method of computation

Article 2 (1) 10 of the International Tax Adjustment Act (amended by Act No. 6779 of Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the arm's length price shall be the price calculated by the "reasonable method" among the following methods: Article 5 (1) of the International Tax Adjustment Act provides that the arm's length price shall be the price calculated by the "reasonable method" under subparagraphs 1 through 3; subparagraph 4 provides that the comparable third party's price method under subparagraph 2, the resale price method under subparagraph 3, the cost plus method under subparagraph 4, and other reasonable methods deemed as applicable to the transaction with a person who is not a foreign related party; Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18628 of Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that the arm's length price method under subparagraphs 1 through 3 and 4 of the same Article shall be applied where the above method is deemed reasonable and reasonable in light of the following methods:

(B) Selection Criteria

The arm's length price is to be calculated at the price calculated according to the "reasonable method". In selecting the arm's length price computation method above, as provided in Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union Act, it is highly likely that the arm's length price can be compared (Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union Act), (Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union Act, (Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union Act, (Article 5 (1) of the Local Tax Act), (Article 5 (2) of the Local Tax Act, (Article 5 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union Act), (Article 5 (2) of the Local Tax Act provides that a family shall have a high level of correspondence to the reality (Article 3). (Article 5 (3) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union Act). In order to increase the possibility of comparison, if there is a high possibility that a reasonable adjustment can be made due to such impact (Article 1 (2). 3).

On the other hand, Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Tax Law requires an analysis of the possibility of business activities, terms and conditions of contract, risks accompanying transactions, kinds and characteristics of goods or services, changes in market conditions, economic conditions, etc. by assessing the difference between comparable third party transactions and the relevant international transaction, and Article 6(7) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Tax Law newly established on August 24, 2006 reflects the contents of general rules of the International Tax Law, Article 5(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Tax Law lists the debt amount, as consideration in determining the normal interest rate, the maturity of debt, the guarantee of debt, and the credit level of the debtor.

(C) Whether the comparison transaction of this case is a transaction subject to legitimate comparison

Considering the following, in calculating the arm's length price under Article 5 (1) of the International Tax Adjustment Act, it should be interpreted that not only "international trade between unrelated parties" but also "domestic trade" can be compared.

① As seen earlier, the concept of ‘normal price’, which serves as the basis for tax adjustment, is defined as ‘price that is applied or may be applied in ordinary transactions with foreign related parties (Article 2 subparag. 10), and is not limited to ‘international trade'.

② As to the comparable third party price method applied to the instant disposition, Article 5(1)1 of the International Tax Act provides that “the transaction price between an independent business operator who has no special relationship” is the arm’s length price in a transaction similar to the relevant transaction, and explicitly does not limit comparable transaction only by means of comparable transaction.

③ The provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the Enforcement Decree of the International Tax Act, which provide for the computation method of an arm’s length price in accordance with a delegation under Article 5(2) of the International Tax Act, do not clearly limit a transaction that serves as the basis for computing an arm’s length price as an “international trade”. Moreover, there is no different provision from the Enforcement Decree of the International Tax Act that limits comparable trade into

④ As seen earlier, Article 5(1)1 and 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade and Labor Act provides a framework for the comparison of international trades between the relevant trade and unrelated parties. However, this is merely a part of the criteria for selecting the most reasonable method of computation to be applied to the relevant trade, among the multiple arm’s length price computation methods under Article 5(1) of the International Trade and Labor Act, and apart from a legislative point out that the selection criteria for cases where the compared trade is a domestic trade is inappropriate compared to the international trade, the mere provision of Article 5(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade and Labor Act cannot be deemed as the basis for deeming only the international trade price as the arm’s length price.

⑤ On December 31, 2004, Article 5(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act under Article 5(2) of the same Act changed to “an international transaction between related parties and “transaction between unrelated parties” as Presidential Decree No. 18628 on December 31, 2004. As to the reason why the amendment was made, the scope of comparative transactions is limited to existing comparable transactions, but if there is a high possibility of comparison, domestic transactions are also intended to enhance the rationalization of arm’s length price calculation by expanding the scope of comparative transactions so that the taxpayer can choose as comparative transactions, and reduce the taxpayer’s tax cooperation cost. However, this is merely merely because the reason behind the amendment of the phrase of “Enforcement Decree of the International Trade Union and Labor Relations Adjustment Act”, it cannot be interpreted that the comparable third party’s price method, among the arm’s length price computation methods stipulated in the International Trade Law, was limited to “international trade.”

6. Unlike the text of the law, if an international transaction and domestic transaction together exist as compared to the relevant transaction, and if an international transaction may bring about a relatively unfavorable result on a taxpayer, the international transaction should be considered as the comparable transaction, which is the basis for computing the arm’s length price, and if it is interpreted differently from the text of the law, it would rather infringe a taxpayer’s interest.

C) Whether it is reasonable to calculate the normal interest rate in the transaction between this case and this case

For the following reasons, the difference between the issue of bonds-backed securities and the situation of the comparison transaction in this case has a significant impact on the calculation of the normal interest rate, and it is difficult to view that the adjustment made by the defendant was a reasonable adjustment to remove the difference in the situation when the defendant calculates the normal interest rate.

① As to the difference between bond-type asset-backed securities and the instant comparative transaction, the Defendant adjusted the difference in interest rates by taking account of the difference between the return on public offering of new bonds of class AA AA with maturity of three years notified by the Korea Securities Dealers Association and the return on private placement. However, considering the difference between the credit rating of general corporate bonds of class AA and bond-backed securities, and the difference between the credit rating of bond-type asset and bond-backed bonds in light of the nature of general corporate bonds, it is difficult to deem the aforementioned adjustment method reasonable.

② The Defendant estimated the termination transaction in order to avoid exchange risk based on the difference between the current comparative transaction price and the current return on maturity with government bonds as the expense at the time of assumption. However, it cannot be readily concluded as a rational adjustment due to the failure to present the above calculation method.

③ The meaning of security here is not only personal security, physical security, but also internal credit reinforcement according to the order of priority and the order of priority (which absorbs considerable investment risks of the subsequent creditor and leads to the opposite creditor to avoid investment risk). It is difficult to view that the adjustment using the weighted average interest rate presented by the defendant is reasonable by fully considering the bonds type asset-backed securities issued by the first priority and the comparative transactions issued by the second priority because there is no clear process about it. Moreover, there is a difference between the maturity and maturity according to the order of priority (it is very diverse stages) and maturity, and it is difficult to find a reasonable ground to simplify these various forms of credit-backed securities into the weighted average interest rate.

④ The maturity of the bond-backed securities of this case is seven years (the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is five years, but the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is merely the form of maturity specified in the plan to issue the bond-backed securities of this case or cannot be deemed to be false merely based on the descriptions in Eul’s 10-1 and 2). The maturity of the comparative transaction of this case is diverse from six months to ten years, and the maturity of the instant comparative transaction is likely to increase the risk premium due to changes in economic situation, and the degree of the higher risk premium varies depending on the credit rating of the bonds. As such, it is reasonable to simply adjust the interest rate by adding a difference in the rate of return on bonds (0.4-1.6%) due to the maturity of the non-guaranteed corporate bonds (AAA grade) on the date of issuance (0.4.6%).

⑤ The Defendant, only when 14 companies, the subject of the instant comparative transactions, were to convert the fee to the interest rate (average 0.01-0.2%) and adjust the difference arising from credit reinforcement. However, the credit reinforcement in the instant comparative transactions is also reasonable in the portion provided by the underlying asset transferor, etc. other than the business trustee, and it is not analyzed as to the impact of such external shipbuilding reinforcement on the interest rate, and it is difficult to find out which method of calculating the fee would have been adjusted to the interest rate, and it cannot be seen as a reasonable adjustment.

(d)Indivates

Therefore, the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 157,069,480 of the corporate tax for the business year 2003 is unlawful.

3) The portion of reduction in the price of insurance policy bonds

Article 35 (1) (1) (l) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that "the value of non-designated donations not included in deductible expenses under Article 24 (1) of the Act shall be the value of property donations gratuitously given to persons other than persons with a special relationship, regardless of their business activities."

In this case, in full view of all the following circumstances, the amount equivalent to the withholding tax amount that the Plaintiff paid to Do governor is a property donation that the Plaintiff disbursed to Do governor without special relation, regardless of its business. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

① ☆☆이 부담한 원천정수세액은 ☆☆과 ★★IF 사이의 거래로 인하여 발생한 것이 어서, 이는 원고와 ☆☆ 사이의 이 사건 □□채권의 거래와 아무런 관련이 없다.

② The Plaintiff asserted that, upon the abolition of the listing of △△ corporation, the Plaintiff refused to pay the price or demanded to reduce the price and paid the amount of withholding tax to △△△△, on the ground that △△ credit was over-assessment from △△△△, but the Plaintiff’s circumstance is not sufficient to incorporate the same amount of withholding tax with the amount of withholding tax to △△△△.

③ As the Plaintiff is, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the △△△△△△ in order to reduce the purchase price of the △△ bonds and received only the reduced amount, not to pay the purchase and sale price of the △△ bonds to the same extent as the withholding tax amount was paid.

4) Calculation of a reasonable tax amount;

The remaining amount of tax, except for the portion imposed on the ground that the ordinary interest rate exceeds the normal interest rate among the disposition imposing corporate tax for the business year 2002, is 376,197,470 won calculated as shown in the separate sheet (the above 3). (The calculation of the normal interest rate based on the comparative transaction of this case is unlawful as long as it is illegal, the total of KRW 10,010,010,800,000,068,586 won for the business year 2,000,000,000,734,860 won for the business year 7,195,734, 860 won for the business year 201, should be added to the loss carried forward for the business year 202. Therefore, the part of the disposition imposing corporate tax against the

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit.