Cho High 2010Gu576 ( September 4, 2013)

The transfer of domestic corporation’s stocks owned by a extinguished corporation upon merger between foreign corporations constitutes the transfer.

In the case of merger between foreign corporations, the transfer of domestic corporation's stocks owned by the merged corporation falls under the transfer, and the disposition agency is reasonable in light of the transaction practice and practice.

Article 44 of the Corporate Tax Act

2013Guhap1460 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax, etc.

000 Mansar 000 00000

00. Head of tax office

June 16, 2015

July 14, 2015

1. As to the Plaintiff on November 2, 2009:

(a) Additional tax in the disposition of imposition of OO(including additional tax) of the corporate tax for the year 2004;

OOO parts;

(b) Additional tax in the disposition of imposition of OO (including additional tax) of the securities transaction tax for October 2004;

OOE part:

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant on November 2, 2009 OO (Additional Tax) of the corporate tax for the year 2004 that reverts to the plaintiff

(B)each disposition of imposition of the securities transaction tax and the OOO(including additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff was a foreign corporation established in accordance with German law, and was holding 100% equity interest in the same SA as a German corporation (hereinafter referred to as “merged corporation”).

B. On August 17, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a merger contract with a merged corporation as follows, and on August 8, 2004

31. A merger between merged corporations (hereinafter referred to as “mergers of this case”). Accordingly, the merger law was followed;

The 50,000 shares issued by the SA Co., Ltd. (50% of the issued shares, hereinafter referred to as “instant shares”) were transferred to the Plaintiff. In relation to this, the Plaintiff did not pay practical compensation, such as issuing new shares or paying cash, to the shareholders of the extinguished corporation or the extinguished corporation.

○ Parties: Plaintiff of the merger company and the merged corporation of the absorption corporation

○ The date of the transfer and merger of assets: The merged corporation shall have the Corporate Restructuring Act 46

all assets excluding liquidation liabilities under section 2 of the Restructuring Act in connection with section 2 or below.

(1) Transfer to the Plaintiff, including powers and obligations, by means of a merger (hereinafter omitted)

○ Payment of Price for Merger: The Plaintiff is a shareholder of the merged corporation, and the merger between the two companies is governed by the Restructuring Act.

54. It shall proceed without an increase in the Plaintiff’s capital pursuant to paragraph 1(1)(1)(hereinafter omitted).

C. The defendant on November 2, 2009, and on the ground that "the transfer of the shares in this case constitutes the transfer of shares issued by a domestic corporation", pursuant to Article 92 (2) 3 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7317, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 131 of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19328, Feb. 9, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 5 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9914, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the "former International Tax Act") and Article 5 of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9914, Dec. 20, 2004; hereinafter the "former International Tax Act"), the average share purchase price of 586, 1967, 207

After calculating the transfer value of KRW 5,377,500,000 (=107,550 】 50,000 x 50,000), the corporation determined and notified the corporation's OO of the corporate tax for the year 2004.

D. The defendant on the same day, and for the same reason, the former Securities Transaction Tax Act (Law No. 8838, Jan. 9, 2008)

Pursuant to Article 7(1)2(c) of the Act, after calculating the transfer value as prescribed in Article 7(1)2(c) of the Act, the OO of securities transaction tax (including additional tax 2,688,750 won) for October 2004 shall be determined and notified (hereinafter the imposition of corporate tax and securities transaction tax).

In total, the disposition of this case was "the disposition of this case".

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on January 21, 2010, but the tax court on September 4, 2013.

The decision of dismissal was made by the personnel board.

Facts that there has been no dispute for recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including a serial number);

The same shall apply hereinafter), Eul's entry into evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Transferability of shares

For the following reasons, the transfer of shares does not constitute a transfer of shares.

The instant disposition is unlawful.

A) A domestic corporation owned by a extinguished extinguished corporation in the merger between foreign corporations

any transfer to a merged corporation surviving the shares is a comprehensive succession by the effect of the merger,

the transfer of shares, the legal nature and effects of such transfer are different, and under the Corporate Tax Act, the stock

explicitly allowing to impose corporate tax on the income of any other securities transfer;

Nevertheless, there is no provision for the transfer of shares under section 93(10) of the Corporate Tax Act.

The taxation is against the principle of no taxation without law.

B) The merger of this case is avoided by the Plaintiff, a merged corporation, holding 100% of the shares of the merged corporation.

The merger price for new shares or the merger subsidy, etc. is not paid to the shareholders of the merged corporation;

The ‘self-merger' is the ‘self-merger', and there was no actual stock transfer income.

C) Under Article 44(3) of the current Corporate Tax Act, a domestic corporation’s total number of outstanding shares or equity investment

in the case of a merger with another corporation owned by the corporation, there is no transfer profit or loss, which provides that no transfer profit or loss shall be

There is no tax exemption for the transfer of shares of the subsidiary at the time of the merger, but foreign laws.

taxation on the transfer of stocks of a subsidiary solely on the ground that such merger is between persons

The avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital between civil and Federal Republic of Germany

Article 24 of the Korean Tax Treaty (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Tax Treaty") is contrary to the principle of non-discrimination.

2) Violation of the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

According to the National Tax Service's established rules at the time of August 31, 2004, which was the date of establishing the instant tax liability, foreign corporations.

The transfer of shares by a domestic corporation due to a merger is not subject to the corporate tax or securities transaction tax.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this case, the defendant shall make a new interpretation or change after the date of establishment of the tax liability.

The disposition of this case was generally accepted by taxpayers under the tax law.

It is against the interpretation and is against the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition.

3) Calculation of the value of the instant shares

Article 5 (1) 1 of the former International Tax Adjustment Act provides that "the third party's price method" shall be deemed as "the third party's price method."

In international trades between a person and a foreign related party, a special officer in a similar transaction

"Method of viewing the transaction price between independent business operators without any limit as the arm's length price"

The arm's length price presented by the defendant at a comparable third party price in this case is non-special relationship.

Article 92 Section 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act because the transaction price between the parties is not the transaction price between the parties.

shall not be an arm's length price under subsection 3 of this section. Accordingly, this section shall be based on the arm's length price calculated erroneously.

The disposition is unlawful.

4) Illegality related to penalty tax

Considering the following, at least the imposition of additional tax on corporate tax and securities transaction tax:

Any disposition shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

1) The defendant, while imposing the additional tax on the corporate tax and the securities transaction tax, imposed the penalty tax amount by type.

Since the basis for calculation was not specified at all, there is procedural defect in imposing penalty tax.

2) As to the transfer of stocks of a domestic corporation due to a merger between foreign corporations, the previous Plaintiff

corporate tax and securities for the Plaintiff, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to pay taxes by believing the non-taxable practice;

No additional tax may be imposed on the non-payment of the transaction tax due to the existence of justifiable grounds.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) As to the issue of stock assignment

A) In calculating the amount of domestic source income of a foreign corporation, the applicable laws and regulations are applicable thereto.

not otherwise provided for in a treaty or a domestic law shall comply with the domestic law and accounting standards.

Article 93 subparag. 10 (a) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that “If a domestic corporation is dissolved due to a merger, the amount of liquidation income shall be calculated by deducting the total amount of equity capital as of the date of the registration of the merger of the merged corporation from the total amount of the price received by stockholders of the merged corporation, etc.” Article 93 subparag. 10 (a) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that “If a domestic corporation is dissolved due to a merger, the transfer of stocks issued by a domestic corporation which is extinguished by a merger between foreign corporations constitutes “transfer of stocks” as referred to in Article 93 subparag. 10 (a) of the Corporate Tax Act shall be determined on the basis of whether the increased value of stocks inherent in the relevant stocks is realized as gains from transfer.” Article 80(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that “If a domestic corporation is dissolved due to a merger, the total amount of the price of the merger income shall be calculated by deducting the total amount of equity capital as of the date of the registration of the merger of the merged corporation.” Article 12 subparag. 16 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act provides that

In the case of a domestic corporation, Article 80(1) and (4) of the former Corporate Tax Act and Article 122 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act

Paragraph (1) and Article 14 (1) 1 (a) and (c) shall realize gains on transfer of assets due to the merger.

(b) the method of calculating the transfer margin by deeming that the transfer of assets constitutes the transfer margin; and

section 44(1)1 and 2 of the former Corporate Tax Act

capital gains de facto from transfer by deeming the face value of shares received as consideration for such transfer as the price for such transfer; and

corporation is not subject to taxation until the merged corporation disposes of the assets in question.

In the case of foreign corporations, the former corporate tax is provided in the case of foreign corporations.

Transfer of stocks, etc. issued by a domestic corporation under subparagraph 10 (a) of Article 93 of the Act;

Income is defined as taxable income and the transfer of stocks, etc. due to merger between foreign corporations.

there is no policy special provisions that deferred taxation, merger between foreign corporations.

transfer of domestic assets by merger between domestic corporations, unlike transfer of domestic assets by merger;

In full view of the fact that there is no reasonable reason not to regard the transfer of assets realized, a merger

The transfer of shares due to the transfer of shares shall be referred to in Article 93 subparagraph 10 (a) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

of this case shall be deemed to fall under section 1.

In addition, the text and purport of Articles 1 and 2(3) of the former Securities Transaction Tax Act, and Article 201.

12. Article 117(1)14 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 6538 of Dec. 29, 29)

Where stocks are transferred for merger satisfying the requirements under the subparagraphs of Article 44 (1), "where stocks are transferred for merger" shall be made a securities transaction.

in light of the fact that the object of tax exemption is newly prescribed, the transfer of shares due to a merger

There is no reason to deem that the transfer of share certificates does not constitute "transfer of share certificates" under this provision (Supreme Court).

November 28, 2013 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du7208 Decided November 28, 2013).

B) Examining the following circumstances in light of the foregoing legal principles as to the instant case:

Issuance of domestic corporations owned as assets by a extinguished corporation extinguished by a merger between foreign corporations.

To transfer stocks to a merged corporation, Article 93 subparag. 10 (a) of the former Corporate Tax Act and securities transaction tax

It is the "transfer of stocks" under Article 2 (3) of the Act.

(1) Article 24(1) of the Korea- Germany Tax Treaty provides that citizens of a Contracting State shall especially reside in connection with their residence.

Taxes borne or payable by a national of the other Contracting State in the same situation, or any

tax or any requirement related thereto that is different from or greater than the applicable requirements; or

this provision shall not be contained. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1, the residents of one or both Contracting States shall be

The so-called principle of non-discrimination also applies to non-discriminations.

The principles are the same conditions as nationals of one Contracting State in the other Contracting State.

tax discrimination for the sole reason that nationality differs.

It should not be disadvantaged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du15179, Apr. 26, 2012).

Therefore, when a domestic corporation is dissolved due to a merger, the Corporate Tax Act imposes corporate tax on the merged corporation and imposes corporate tax on the merged corporation with respect to the unrealized profits accumulated in the merged corporation. This is also a taxation on the unrealized profits accumulated in the merged corporation. In addition, where profits are generated to the stockholders of the merged corporation, this is not a realization of the profits from the disposal of stocks, but it is equivalent to the stock dividends ordinarily transferring the earned surplus of the merged company into capital, and thus, it is taxed as fictitious dividend. Therefore, even if the transfer of stocks is imposed by the merger from the transfer of stocks, there is no difference in that it is taxed on unrealized profits arising from the transfer of assets. Furthermore, as to the method of calculating the amount of income, there is a difference in calculating the amount of income by deducting the acquisition value from the transfer value of all assets owned by the corporation, and there is no fundamental difference between the transfer income and the liquidation income. Therefore, so long as the taxation on liquidation income between domestic corporations is recognized, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of "discrimination" by deeming the transfer of domestic assets between foreign corporations.

(2) Article 44 of the Corporate Tax Act amended by Act No. 9898, Dec. 31, 2009

upon dissolution, the corporation's assets are deemed to be transferred to the merged corporation; and

The new structure shall be as follows:

Before the amendment on December 31, 2009

After the amendment on December 31, 2009

Article 44 (Inclusion of Amount equivalent to Evaluation Marginal Profit in Calculation of Losses) (1) Where a merged corporation succeeds to the evaluation of assets of a merged corporation and succeeds to such evaluation, such succeeded assets (limited to assets as prescribed by the Presidential Decree):

The amount equivalent to the merger evaluation marginal profit on the assets concerned may be included in deductible expenses in calculating the income amount for the business year which includes the registration date of merger under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

1. A merger shall be between domestic corporations which have continued to operate business for not less than one year as of the date of merger registration;

2. Where the total amount of the price received by stockholders of an extinguished corporation in return for such merger from the merged corporation is 95% or more of the value of the stocks; and

3. The merged corporation shall continue the business succeeded from the extinguished corporation by the end of the business year in which the merger is registered.

Article 80 (Calculation of Liquidation Income Amount due to Merger) (1) Where a domestic corporation is dissolved due to a merger, the amount of liquidation income (hereinafter referred to as the "settlement income due to a merger") shall be the merged corporation by stockholders of the extinguished corporation

The total cost of merger received from the merged shall be the amount obtained by deducting the total amount of equity capital as of the date of registration of the merger.

Article 44 (Taxation on merged Corporation) (1) Where an extinguished corporation is dissolved through a merger, the assets of the corporation shall be deemed to have been transferred to the merged corporation. In this case, transfer profit or loss (the value under subparagraph 1) accruing from such transfer

The amount obtained by subtracting the value of subparagraph 2 from the total amount of income under subparagraph 2; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article and Article 44-3) shall be included in the calculation of earnings or losses in the business year in which the merger of the extinguished corporation is registered

1. The transfer value received by an extinguished corporation from the merged corporation;

2. The value obtained by subtracting the total book value of liabilities from the total book value of assets as at the date the merger of the extinguished corporation is registered (hereinafter in this Sub-Section, referred to as "net asset book value");

Article 80 Deleted

Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of the Corporate Tax Act prior to the amendment is received from the merged corporation with respect to the "merged corporation"

In addition, the amended Corporate Tax Act deleted the provisions of the liquidation income tax amount (Article 80) and provides that the assets of the corporation shall be transferred to the merged corporation if the merged corporation is dissolved due to the merger. In this case, the transfer profit or loss shall be included in the calculation of earnings or losses in the calculation of the income amount of the merged corporation in the calculation of the income amount of the business year which includes the date of the merger in case the merger meets the requirements of Article 44(1)1 through 3. While the former Corporate Tax Act prior to the amendment by the nature and type of the Commercial Act has the position of the theory of the theory of the theory of the inclusion of the merger in kind, it is evaluated that the merger income and the merger profit has the characteristics of the merger corporation by allowing the merger corporation to succeed to the book value of the merged corporation, while the amended Act provides that the transfer profit or loss shall be included in the calculation of the income amount of the merger in the calculation of the income amount of the corporation subject to the merger.

There is no difference in that point of view. Therefore, it is not considered to be the transfer of the assets of the merged corporation under the amended Corporate Tax Act, but merely changes the taxation of the income that the merged corporation imposed separately from the business income of the merged corporation to the income taxation method of the business year, and there is no reason to regard the transfer of the stocks as before the amended Corporate Tax Act enters into force.

③ Meanwhile, the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same shall apply)

C) The main text of Article 88(1) is to register or register assets with the concept of "transfer" in capital gains.

due to sale, exchange, investment in kind in a corporation, etc., regardless of whether the assets are

was actually transferred, and the reason for sale, exchange, or investment in kind in a corporation is

The transfer of assets is not regarded as a "transfer" in the transfer income, and even if the assets are generated for any reason other than that, when the assets are actually transferred for price.

It should be deemed that the transfer, which is the cause of taxation of capital gains tax, was made (Supreme Court Decision 201Da1589 Decided December 9, 201

In the end, even if the concept of transfer under the Corporate Tax Act is deemed as identical to that under the Income Tax Act, the transfer of assets can be seen as long as the concept of transfer under the merger contract, which is a stock-based contract, is actually transferred by the merger contract, which is a stock-based contract in the instant case.

2) As to the merger with no cost of merger

The plaintiff holding 100% of the shares of a merged corporation at the time of the merger of this case

As seen earlier, the price for merger, which is the result, has not been paid.

① However, deeming the transfer of assets due to a merger as transfer of assets is for unrealized profits.

Since the purpose of taxation is to impose tax, it cannot be deemed that the actual cost of merger is premised on the number of revenues;

(2) Where an extinguished corporation holds 100% of the stocks of the extinguished corporation and excludes taxation, the extinguished corporation first.

10% of the shares are likely to be subject to a law, such as merger after acquisition of shares, and

(3) prevent such a deviation and ensure the appropriateness of taxation;

section 80(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that a merger of domestic corporations constitutes qualified mergers.

corporation, the merger corporation acquires the stock or investment of the corporation within 2 years prior to the date of the merger registration.

(hereinafter referred to as "combined shares") if there are shares, the acquisition value of the combined shares shall be added to the price of the merger.

(4) Foreign corporations in light of the intent of the Corporate Tax Act provisions for such domestic corporations

Even if the shares are acquired, it can be assessed that the price has already been paid at the time of the merger.

It is difficult to see that the value of payment is denied even if there is no actual payment of the cost of merger;

⑤ On the other hand, 'the time when the corporate tax is established' is actually paid the income amount.

income tax on interest income and dividend income shall not mean the time when the acquisition amount is paid.

Article 131(1) and (2) of the Act, and Article 135(1) through (3) of the former Income Tax Act concerning earned income may be deemed as having not been paid but to have been paid and withheld at source. Thus, even in the case of the merger of this case, the merged corporation in relation to the payment of the price for the merger.

Considering that the transfer of shares, which is the time of asset transfer, can be seen as the time of establishment of the corporate tax withheld, the corporate tax liability of the merged corporation is established on the ground that the transfer of shares in this case is a free transaction or there is no actual income payment.

3) As to the violation of the principle of retroactive taxation prohibition

The principle of retroactive taxation prohibition stipulated in Article 18(3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is imposed by tax authorities.

SectorTo modify the interpretation of tax laws generally accepted by taxpayers or the practice of national tax administration

merely because it was made, it is not applicable to the sole reason that the taxpayer was responsible for the interpretation of the tax law or national tax administration.

any act or calculation by which it has trusted the practice of such person, and further

as a result of the taxation disposition, only if the taxpayer suffers economic disadvantage, such as tax burden, etc.

can be used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3629, Jul. 28, 1995).

In this case, each questioning reply by the National Tax Service prior to the disposition of this case submitted by the Plaintiff as reference material

Not only the plaintiff's answer to the question, but also the answer to the question of a specific civil petitioner.

Each reply is merely accepted by taxpayers as a matter of course.

It is difficult to transfer domestic corporation's shares due to merger between domestic corporations.

The interpretation of the National Tax Service, which is not subject to taxation, is generally accepted by taxpayers.

Even if the Plaintiff were to be deemed to have reached the merger of this case with trust in such interpretation.

Since it is difficult (the corporate tax on the remaining shares of this case which the plaintiff trusted such interpretation; and

The plaintiff's assertion that the disposition of this case against each questioning letter violates the retroactive taxation prohibition principle under Article 18 (3) of the Framework Act on National Taxes is without merit.

4) As to the assessment of the value of the instant shares

Article 92(2)3 of the former Corporate Tax Act; Article 131(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act;

Domestic source income from the transfer of stocks issued by a domestic corporation of a foreign corporation which has no place of business

Foreign corporations with no such foreign corporations and foreign corporations with special relations as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (non-resident);

(including any person) transaction between persons, the transaction value of which is the same, Article 5 of the former International Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

4 In the case of lower than the value calculated by applying mutatis mutandis the method set forth in Article 4 (hereinafter referred to as “normal value”);

In principle, the arm's length price shall be the relevant revenue amount, but it shall not be calculated.

A normal value assessed by applying mutatis mutandis Article 99(1)3 to 6 of the former Income Tax Act

On the other hand, according to Article 5 of the former International Tax Act, the arm's length price shall be non-cost.

price method of third party, resale price method, cost plus plus method, most reasonable method

shall be determined at the price calculated by such method, provided that the arm's length price cannot be calculated by such method;

In accordance with Article 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19650, Aug. 24, 2006; hereinafter the same), "other reasonable methods prescribed by Presidential Decree" means the methods deemed reasonable in light of the profit division method, net profit ratio method, and other transaction substance and practice.

As to the instant case, the merger of this case is between foreign corporations with a special relationship.

In this regard, the shares of this case fall under a case where actual merger cost is not paid at all.

The transfer value should be determined on the basis of the arm's length price. However, the defendant must determine the arm's length price.

by method of calculating comparable third party price method, the SAA corporation

The transaction price between the shareholders Gangwon and SamA and YB was determined at a comparable third party, and the Gangwon and each of the above companies had a special relationship with each other.

There is no dispute between the parties, and according to Article 5 (1) 1 of the International Tax Act, a comparable transaction is possible.

The third party price shall be the same as the transaction in an international transaction between the resident and the foreign related party.

In a future situation, it is erroneous that the Defendant calculated the arm’s length price based on the transaction price between the GangwonA and each company by deeming the transaction price between the company and the comparable third party.

However, in the case of this case, the resale price method, cost, other than comparable third party pricing method

Other reasonable persons prescribed by the Presidential Decree as being difficult to derive the arm's length price by means of an industrial method.

It is reasonable to calculate the arm's length price with "the method determined", and Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the former International Tax Act.

The method of dividing profits and net trade profit ratio referred to in subparagraph 2 shall be the transaction between non-specially related persons.

Since it is premised on the premise, the arm's length price should be determined according to the "other methods deemed reasonable in light of the substance and practice of the transaction in subparagraph 3 of the same Article."

Therefore, the following circumstances are as to whether it is reasonable to recognize the transaction price between the GangnamA and each company as the arm's length price in light of the substance and practice of the transaction as the arm's length price, and the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as to whether it is reasonable, and the following circumstances are acknowledged: ① the shares of this case as non-listed shares seems not to be comparable in the case of a transaction; ② the transfer of non-listed shares to a specially related party is a transaction at a price close to the market price assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof; ③ the transfer of non-listed shares at a price close to the market price assessed in accordance with the provisions of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007); ③ according to

The same applies mutatis mutandis to Article 63 and Article 54 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18627, Dec. 31, 2004; hereinafter the same). In light of the fact that the value per share is 106,909 won, which is similar to 107,550 won, which is the actual transaction price between the Gangwon and each company, the defendant is demoted.

determining the arm's length price between each corporation as the arm's length price shall be the substance and practice of the transaction.

(2) If the transaction price is the substance and practice of the transaction, such transaction price shall be deemed reasonable.

If it is deemed reasonable to do so, Article 131(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act

applicable mutatis mutandis under Article 99 (1) 3 through 6 of the former Income Tax Act;

The shares of this case should be determined at the normal price, and according to the statement in Section B-2-2, the shares of this case

Article 99 (1) 5 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 165 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Amounting to 113,420 won, 107,550 won, the actual transaction price between the two companies, as seen earlier.

In excess of the above, the Plaintiff would rather be disadvantageous to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that recognized the actual transaction price between the GangnamA and each company as the arm’s length price and determined the excessive tax amount against the Plaintiff is lawful.

5) As to the illegality of imposing additional tax

When principal tax and additional tax are concurrently imposed by a tax payment notice, a tax payment notice shall be issued.

It is necessary to separate the principal tax and the penalty tax amount and the calculation basis, etc.

Where penalty taxes of the kind are imposed together, the penalty taxes and the penalty taxes for each type between them;

Each tax disposition by itself by a taxpayer, upon separate entry of grounds for withdrawal, etc.

As a matter of principle, the imposition of penalty tax is a disposition imposing penalty tax.

Where only a total sum of additional taxes is entered without expressly disclosing the type and the basis for calculation of tax amount.

The disposition of imposition cannot be exempt from the illegality (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du12347, Oct. 18, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, each of the additional taxes on corporate tax and securities transaction tax shall be stated in the notice of tax payment issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff only in total, and specific.

The facts that did not indicate the details of penalty tax and the basis for calculation do not conflict between the parties;

Notice of tax payment of each of the dispositions in this case shall contain descriptions required by relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

There is no reason to view that there is a defective defect and that the defect has been supplemented or cured.

Therefore, whether there is a legitimate reason for the unpaid corporate tax and securities transaction tax of the Plaintiff

In addition, each of the dispositions in this case shall be revoked on the ground that the disposition in this case is unlawful.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this point is with merit.

6) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the portion of the additional tax on corporate tax and the portion of the additional tax on the securities transaction tax should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

Since the remaining claims are without merit, they shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.