본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
대법원 1984. 4. 24. 선고 83누646 판결

[법인세등부과처분취소][공1984.7.1.(731),1032]

Main Issues

Whether the revenue of commission received by a foreign corporation from a German manufacturer to supply or intermediate sales to a domestic company is the domestic source income of the foreign corporation concerned (affirmative)

Summary of Judgment

In the event that the Plaintiff Company, a foreign corporation operating the import, export, and brokerage of vessel-related parts, secured a sales right to sell the goods of the German vessel parts manufacturing company to Japan and Korea and supplied the goods to the Korean shipbuilding company through its sales activities, the sales price of the Plaintiff Company shall be the difference between the price of the goods in Korea and the price of the goods in Korea. In the event that the German manufacturer sells the goods in Korea without going through the Plaintiff Company, the German manufacturer agreed with the German company to receive a commission equivalent to 5 percent of the sales price. Accordingly, if the Plaintiff received the goods in Germany from the Korean shipbuilding company after receiving a commission equivalent to 5 percent of the sales price of the goods in Germany, by importing or brokering the goods in Germany from the Korean shipbuilding company, the above commission revenue shall be deemed domestic source income accrued from the business operated in Korea

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 1(3) and 55(1)5 of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Attorney Park Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant-Appellee

Head of Yeongdeungpo-do Tax Office

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 82 Gu190 delivered on October 20, 1983

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiff is a limited company operating the import and export of vessel relations parts with Japan and its brokerage business in Korea, which established a branch office in the mid-gu Busan metropolitan Dong on August 1, 1978 and completed business registration under Article 5 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and that when securing the right to sell the products of the German vessel parts manufacturing company to Japan and Korea and the goods are supplied to the Korean shipbuilding company, the German company's sales price by item is fixed so that the plaintiff's sales price by item is at a certain rate, and if the German manufacturer sells the products in Korea without going through the plaintiff company and without going through the plaintiff company, the German company agreed with the German company to pay the plaintiff a fee equivalent to five percent of its sales price to the plaintiff. The court below's decision that there is no error of law in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the sales price of the above products from Hyundai Heavy Industries, Samsung Shipbuilding, East Shipbuilding, and Taedong Shipbuilding, and the above sales price of the plaintiff's products in Korea and the above sales price of the plaintiff's products.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young