[1] In a case where the person to whom the property belongs lacks the ability to control and manage the property, there is another person who substantially controls and manages the property through the control, etc. over the nominal owner, and the disparity between the name and the substance arises from the purpose of tax evasion, whether the person to whom the income from the property belongs (i.e., the person to whom the property is substantially controlled and manager), and whether

[2] Where a foreign unincorporated association, foundation or other organization is a profit-making organization that obtains domestic source income under Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act or Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act and distributes such income to its members, the method of imposing taxation on the pertinent income and the standard of determining whether the organization is a foreign corporation

[3] In a case where the income earner entered in a statement of payment and a withholding receipt pursuant to Articles 98(13) and 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act is the person to whom the pertinent income belongs formally, whether the income earner subject to withholding under Article 45-2(4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes can exercise the right to demand a correction of the tax base and tax amount

[4] The case affirming the judgment below holding that Eul corporation, which entered in the statement of payment as income earner, can exercise the right to request correction of withholding tax amount as stipulated in Article 45-2 (4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, in case where Eul corporation, which requested correction of the total amount of withholding tax on the ground that capital gains should be exempted pursuant to Articles 4 and 13 of the Convention between the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income between the Republic of Korea and Belgium, should be exempted.

[5] The meaning of “person acting as a partner” under the proviso of Article 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and the Encouragement of International Trade and Investment

[1] The substance over form principle under Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013) refers to a person to whom the actual income, profit, property, transaction, etc. belongs, if there is any other person to whom the actual income, profit, etc. belongs, unlike the nominal owner, should be the person to whom the actual income, profit, property, transaction, etc. belongs. Thus, the nominal owner of the property is not the person to whom the property belongs, but the person to whom the property belongs is not the person to whom the actual income, etc., is not the person to whom the property belongs, and there is another person who substantially controls and manages the property through the control, etc. over the nominal owner, and the disparity between the nominal owner and the real owner arises from the purpose of tax evasion, the income on the property shall be deemed to

[2] In a case where an unincorporated association, foundation, or other foreign organization acquires domestic source income under Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013) or Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11607, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) and distributes it to its members, if it can be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the organization shall be liable for tax payment and shall be subject to corporate tax on domestic source income. If it cannot be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the member of the organization shall be liable for tax payment and shall be subject to income tax or corporate tax on the income distributed to each of its members, depending on the status of its members. As to whether it can be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the specific requirements of foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act shall be determined depending on whether it can be deemed a separate subject of rights and obligations independent of its members under Korean judicial (judicial) in light of the content of the country established.

[3] According to Article 45-2(1)1 and Article 45-2(4)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same), where a withholding agent pays corporate tax withheld under Article 98 of the former Corporate Tax Act and submits a payment record within the submission deadline in accordance with Article 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act with respect to a person subject to withholding who has income from domestic sources under Article 93 subparag. 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 8 through 10 of the Corporate Tax Act, where the tax base and tax amount entered in the withholding receipt exceed the tax base and tax amount payable under the tax law, the withholding agent or withholding agent may request the head of the competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and tax amount entered in the withholding receipt within three years after the payment deadline for the withholding tax expires.

The former Corporate Tax Act issues a withholding tax receipt to a person who receives the relevant domestic source income, and the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment is obligated to submit a statement of payment stating the person who receives the relevant income as an income earner (Articles 98(13) and 120-2). Moreover, the determination of actual income attribution is confirmed only after undergoing a substantive examination. As such, as long as the income earner entered in the statement of payment and the withholding tax receipt files a request for correction on the premise that he/she is an effective owner of the relevant income, it is necessary to allow such request. Therefore, even if the income earner entered in the statement of payment and the withholding tax receipt is not a formal nominal owner of the relevant income, it is reasonable to deem that he/she can exercise the right to claim for the correction

[4] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in a case where Eul corporation, a partner corporation of the United States established by the Dedela Act and invested as a limited partner of the United States as an investor, acquired Eul corporation's stocks as a purchaser of the Belgium corporation established under the Belgium Act (hereinafter "Belgium"), Eul corporation transferred part of Eul corporation's stocks to Byung corporation and paid the remainder to Eul corporation after withholding 10% of the transfer income tax and paying the remainder to Eul corporation, and Eul corporation filed a request for the refund of the entire amount of withholding tax on the ground that transfer income should be exempted pursuant to Articles 4 and 13 of the Convention between the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Belgium for the Avoidance of Fiscal Evasion of Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income, even if Eul corporation established as a Belgium corporation with the payment record as a partner of the Belgium corporation, Eul corporation shall exercise its resident qualification in order to avoid taxation on transfer income, Eul corporation shall be entitled to exercise its right to request a withholding tax under Article 4-2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 164-4)

[5] Article 16(1) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Encouragement of International Trade and Investment (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty”) provides that capital gains accruing by a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be exempted from taxation by the source country. In addition, Article 3(1)(b) provides that “the term “resident of the United States of America” means any of the following,” and (i) item (ii) provides that “other person who is resident of the United States of America (excluding a corporation or an organization treated as a corporation under the law of the United States) who acts as a partner or trustee of the United States of America, the income accruing by such person shall be limited to the scope that the income of the resident must comply with the tax of the United States of America.”

In light of the language, structure, etc. of the proviso of Article 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, the term “person acting as a partner” in this context shall be deemed to mean an organization liable for tax in the United States with respect to the income derived from its activities as a member under the U.S. tax law, and the term “only to the extent that the income derived from such person is subject to the U.S. tax as the income of a resident” means that such an organization is treated as a resident of the United States under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty to the extent that the member is liable for the U.S. tax with respect to the income of the entity. In such a case, whether the member is liable for tax in

[1] Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013); / [2] Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013); Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11607, Jan. 1, 2013); / [3] Article 45-2(1)1 and (4)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013); Article 98(13) and 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11607, Jan. 1, 2013); Article 16(1)2 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (Amended by Act No. 11607, Jan. 14, 2013) / [4]

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2611 Decided December 15, 2016 (Gong2017Sang, 164) / [1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du8499 Decided January 19, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 359) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du11948 Decided April 26, 2012 (Gong2012Sang, 892), Supreme Court Decision 2010Du25466 Decided October 25, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1963), Supreme Court Decision 2015Du2451 Decided July 14, 2016 (Gong2019Du25379 Decided April 26, 2019) / [209Du31979 Decided July 14, 2016]

LSF-KEB Holdings, SCA et al. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yoon Jae-ri et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The director of the Nam-gu Tax Office (Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Soh Ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Nu74178, 74185 decided September 23, 2015

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each party.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4

(1) The substance over form principle under Article 14(1) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 11604, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) refers to a person to whom the property belongs, if there is another person to whom the property belongs, unlike the nominal person, belongs with respect to the subject of taxation, such as income, profit, property, transaction, etc., and if there is another person to whom the property belongs, the nominal person is not the person to whom the property belongs, but the person to whom the property belongs, is not the person to whom the property belongs, is not the person to whom the property belongs, and there is another person who actually controls and manages the property through the control, etc. over the nominal person, and the disparity between the nominal person and the real person arises from the purpose of tax evasion, the income on the property shall be deemed to have been reverted to the person who actually controls and manages the property and the person to whom the property belongs (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 208Du84999, Jan. 19, 201202).

(2) The lower court acknowledged the following facts in full view of the admitted evidence.

① Lone Star Fund was first established by Nonparty 1 (English name omitted) in the mid-1990s as a private equity fund that creates profits through a financial institution or a general company’s acquisition and merger, purchase of non-performing loans, or investment in real estate with low asset value after raising funds through private placement. On the completion of each investment, Lone Star Fund first formed “Lone Star Fund I” through “Lone Star Fund IV” in the form of constituting a new fund.

② Lone Star Fund Holdings (LSSS.), Lone Star Holdings Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star”) is established under the laws of the United States Dedelawa, and investment partners of the United States are limited partnerships, and Hudco Partners IV, Lone Star Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Hudco Partners”) is a community corporation established under the laws of the Republic of Korea in order to provide investment opportunities to its subsidiaries in the Republic of Korea. Lone Star Fund Holdings Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star Korea Ltd.”). Lone Star Fund Holdings Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star”) and Lone Star Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star”) Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star Korea Ltd.), Lone Star Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star”) Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star”) and Lone Star Korea Ltd. (hereinafter “Lone Star Korea Ltd.).

③ Lone Star Fund has Lone Star Global Squiis (hereinafter “lsGA”) Lone Star Fund, a corporation wholly owned by Nonparty 1, for the purpose of identifying and assessing investment objects, as an affiliated company. For the purpose of managing the assets invested in each country, Nonparty 1 and the corporation under its control owns all of the equity interests, and has Hudson Loneson Loneson’s LALC (hereinafter “HAL”). Lone Star Fund and HAL are established under a contract on the discovery and asset management of Lone Star and HAL, a subsidiary company for investment and asset management, and its subsidiaries in the Republic of Korea, and its subsidiaries in the Republic of Korea are Korea, and the Lone Star Fund and HAL are Korea, Korea, Lone Star Fund and Korea, and Lone Star Fund are Korea, Korea, hereinafter “Korea,” hereinafter respectively.

④ Nonparty 2, a domestic manager of Lone Star Fund IV, recommended LSG and LSP to purchase a domestic bank as an opportunity for high profits. On October 2002, Nonparty 3, a representative director of HAK, visited the foreign exchange bank and officially expressed Lone Star Fund’s investment intent. On February 10, 2003, Nonparty 3 started official acquisition work, including submitting a preliminary proposal for acquiring the foreign exchange bank to the president of the foreign exchange bank. Nonparty 2, as well as Nonparty 2, participated in negotiations for acquiring the foreign exchange bank.

⑤ On August 27, 2003, the acquisition contract for the shares of the foreign exchange bank was concluded on August 27, 2003. Plaintiff LSFK, the purchaser of the contract, was a corporation established on August 21, 2003 under the Belgium Act (hereinafter “Belgium”). The instant top-tier investors owned 9% of the shares of Plaintiff Lone Star Global Holdings Holdings (Loneone thing, Lt) established in the Republic of Korea in order with the instant top-tier investors established in the Republic of Korea.

④ On February 9, 2012, Plaintiff SC transferred KRW 3,915,60,79,672 (hereinafter “instant shares”) out of the total issued shares in a foreign exchange bank to the Plaintiff Han Financial Branch Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Han Financial Branch”) for KRW 3,915,60,79,80 (hereinafter “instant capital gains”). Han Financial Co., Ltd paid KRW 391,560,779,680 equivalent to 10% of the instant capital gains on March 5, 2012, and paid the remainder to Plaintiff SC after withholding KRW 391,560,779,680 equivalent to 10% of the instant capital gains.

7) On May 9, 2012, Plaintiff SC filed a request with the Defendant for rectification of the entire amount of withholding tax on the grounds that the instant capital gains ought to be exempted pursuant to Articles 4 and 13 of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the Belgium for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter “Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty”), but the Defendant was deemed to have rejected the request for rectification by failing to give any notice within two months thereafter. Thereafter, on December 20, 2012, the Defendant issued a request for rectification on the ground that the said KRW 39,156,077,968, out of the instant capital gains on December 20, 2012, on the ground that the stock transfer contract was concluded on or around November 29, 2010, on the ground that the withholding obligation was established in the business year 2010, and on February 1, 2013, the Defendant issued ex officio revocation and refund of this part, including penalty tax (5).

(3) On the following grounds, the lower court determined that the instant transfer income did not have been attributed to Plaintiff SC, on the grounds that Plaintiff SC merely was an authorized company established to acquire the resident status in the Belgium in order to avoid taxation on the instant transfer income.

① At the time of the acquisition of the instant stocks, Belgium was in use by multi-national investment institutions as a means of tax reduction using the equity exemption system, capital gains non-taxation system, Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, etc., and was classified into the OECD as a coloring national group to ensure that the OECD would comply with international tax standards.

② On August 21, 2003, before entering into an underwriting agreement of the instant shares, Lone Star Fund IV established Plaintiff SC in Belgium with a view to receiving benefit from taxation exemption on the stock transfer income in accordance with the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, and acquired the instant shares on August 27, 2003.

③ Under the instant underwriting agreement and the subsequent transfer agreement, the parties were under the name of Plaintiff SC, but this was conducted in accordance with the order investment and governance structure of Lone Star Fund IV, and the investors were financed out of the funds of the instant top-tier investors. The practice of the underwriting agreement was led by Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, the officer of Lone Star Fund IV, the domestic asset management company of Lone Star Fund IV, and Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3, the officer of Lone Star Fund IV. The transfer agreement was led by Nonparty 1, the general partner of LSP, the representative of LSC, the representative of Lone Star Fund IV, and Nonparty 1, etc.

④ Plaintiff SC did not have any employee affiliated with it, and did not pay, rent, and fixtures essential for its business activities. 9% of the total assets of this case were the shares of this case. The remainder was the same as the credit purchase amount, cash, etc. related to the investment company. The address was the same as the location of Lone Star Fund’s other Belgium-related company.

⑤ Plaintiff SC was used in the optimal investment structure by the instant top-tier investors, and there was no circumstance that it performed any other business or activity for any purpose other than the formal role as a holding company for investment in Lone Star Fund IV. As to the sale of the instant shares, it did not have an independent economic interest other than dividends to the instant top-tier investors.

(4) Of the reasoning of the judgment below, the part on the premise that Plaintiff SC should prove that it is the beneficial owner is inappropriate, but the conclusion that Plaintiff SC is merely a Dog and cannot be deemed the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case is based on the legal principles as seen earlier. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 5 through 10

(1) In a case where an unincorporated association, foundation, or other foreign organization acquires domestic source income under Article 119 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11611, Jan. 1, 2013) or Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11607, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) and distributes it to its members, if it can be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the organization shall be liable to pay corporate tax on domestic source income. If it cannot be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the organization shall be liable to pay corporate tax on the income distributed to its members, and if it cannot be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the income tax or corporate tax shall be imposed on the income of its members, depending on its members’ status. In this context, as to whether the organization can be deemed a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, the specific requirements of the foreign corporation shall be determined depending on whether it belongs to independent rights and obligations under Korean judicial (judicial).

(2) After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court determined that, in light of the following circumstances, the six higher-tier investors of the instant case were profit-making organizations established with the purpose of earning profit from the transaction of the instant shares by taking account of the content of the laws and regulations of the establishment country and the substance of the organization, it constitutes a foreign corporation under the former Corporate Tax Act, and that the final investors of the instant six higher-tier investors among the instant capital gains of the instant case could not be deemed the actual holders of the instant capital gains.

① Of Lone Star Fund IV’s investment structure related to the instant shares, all of the corporations located between the instant top-tier investors and Plaintiff SC are established by the instant top-tier investors, and it is difficult to recognize that the instant top-tier investors were equipped with human and physical facilities.

② The instant top-tier investors are organizations established with the unique investment purpose of allocating capital gains by obtaining capital gains, etc. through the instant stocks, and consisting of general partners performing daily business and limited partners with unlimited liability only within the investment limit. As a result, the instant top-tier investors operated lsP as a general partner, and played a role such as inviting final investors to recruit final investors, substantial supply of funds for purchase of the instant stocks, and distribution of profits thereafter.

③ The six top-tier investors of the instant case were established in Austria for the purpose of opening and operating an overseas bank account without restriction on foreign exchange regulations, and may possess property and acquire and sell the subject-matter of investment, separate from the members who are legal members of Austria, and may file a lawsuit in their names in certain cases.

④ Among the six higher-tier investors of this case, four organizations were composed of limited partners, but they were also composed of general partners. The investment structure was established to ensure that the investment was made to subordinate partners without going through the said four organizations. These organizations were established for the same purpose as the remaining higher-tier investors with multiple limited partners, and constituted the same phase of investment structure.

(3) Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on substance over form doctrine and the standards for determining foreign corporations under the former Corporate Tax Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

C. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 11 through 13

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that the tax treaty between the Doo country and the Republic of Korea, which is the domicile of the six top-tier investors of the instant case, cannot be applied to the part attributable to them among the transfer income of the instant case, since the tax treaty was not concluded between the Republic of Korea and the community of Korea.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the application standards of tax treaties, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from those cited in the grounds

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to Article 45-2(1)1 and (4)3 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, where a withholding agent pays corporate tax withheld at source in accordance with Article 98 of the former Corporate Tax Act on a person subject to withholding who has income generated from sources in the Republic of Korea falling under Article 93 subparag. 1, 2, 4 through 6, and 8 through 10 of the former Corporate Tax Act, and submits a payment record within the submission deadline in accordance with Article 120-2 of the former Corporate Tax Act, the withholding agent or the person subject to withholding may request the head of the competent tax office to determine or correct the tax base and tax amount entered in the withholding receipt within three years after the payment deadline for the withholding tax expires.

The former Corporate Tax Act issues a withholding tax receipt to a person who receives the relevant domestic source income, and the head of a tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment is obligated to submit a statement of payment stating the person who receives the relevant income as an income earner (Articles 98(13) and 120-2). Moreover, the determination of actual income attribution is confirmed only after undergoing a substantive examination. As such, as long as the income earner entered in the statement of payment and the withholding tax receipt files a request for correction on the premise that he/she is an effective owner of the relevant income, it is necessary to allow such request. Therefore, even if the income earner entered in the statement of payment and the withholding tax receipt is not a formal nominal owner of the relevant income, it is reasonable to deem that he/she can exercise his/her right to claim the correction

In the same purport, the court below, in this case, deemed that, even if Plaintiff SC, indicated as the income earner on the statement of payment, is a Doctrine company, it can exercise the right to demand rectification as a withholding agent under Article 45-2(4) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and taken part of the assertion on the tax base and amount of corporate tax withheld on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, was based on the legal principles as seen earlier. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the eligibility

B. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

Article 16(1) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income and the Encouragement of International Trade and Investment (hereinafter “Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty”) provides that capital gains accruing by a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be exempted from the taxation by the source country. In addition, Article 3(1)(b) provides that “the term “resident of the United States of America” means the following: (i) the term “U.S. corporation” is defined in subparagraph (ii) and (ii) the term “other person residing in the United States of America (excluding a corporation or any organization treated as a corporation under the laws of the United States), but in the case of a person acting as a partner or trustee, the income accruing by such person shall be limited to the scope that the income accruing shall be subject to

In light of the language, structure, etc. of the proviso to Article 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, the term “person acting as a partner” in this context shall be deemed to mean an organization liable for tax in the United States with respect to the income derived from its activities as a constituent member under the U.S. tax law, and the term “only to the extent that the income derived from such a person is subject to the U.S. tax as the income of a resident” means that such an organization is treated as a resident of the United States under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty to the extent that the member is liable for the U.S. tax with respect to the income of the entity (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Du1836, Jun. 26, 2014). In such a case, whether a member is liable for tax in the U.S. ought to be determined depending on whether an abstract

The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, and determined that Lone Star U.S. Tax Treaty applies to the portion attributable to Lone Star U.S.’s limited partners among the transfer income of this case, on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the instant final investors are U.S. residents, in view of the following: (a) Lone Star U.S. consists of lsP and 38 final investors, a general partner with limited liability (hereinafter “instant final investors”); and (b) the income of Lone Star U.S. is distributed according to the investment shares stated in the partnership agreement.

Examining the record in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of “the scope of compliance with U.S. tax” under the proviso of Article 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)