Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Gwangju District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-335 ( July 16, 2015)
Case Number of the previous trial
2013-Mining-3822
Title
The F1 holding fee under the Korea-U.S. Tax Treaty is the user fee income.
Summary
It is reasonable to deem that the instant license fee falls under the royalty income from the provision of commercial information and know-how, not the business income from the provision of professional services.
Related statutes
Articles 93 and 98 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11128, Dec. 31, 2011); the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income and Transfer Income between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom Government
Cases
2015Nu6292 Revocation of revocation of revocation of corporate tax rectification
Plaintiff and appellant
AA
Defendant, Appellant
000 director of the tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Guhap335 Decided July 16, 2015
Conclusion of Pleadings
October 22, 2015
Imposition of Judgment
November 12, 2015
Orders
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
summary of the summary
It is reasonable to deem that the instant license fee falls under the royalty income from the provision of commercial information and know-how, not the business income from the provision of professional services.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant's revocation of the disposition rejecting correction of the corporate tax withholding amounting to KRW 4,335,547,480 and corporate tax withholding amounting to KRW 4,272,274,764 on July 22, 2013 for the plaintiff on July 2, 2013.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning for this Court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "aa bb B B B B B B B B B B B B B B of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "the defendant" of Section 8 of Section 10 is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes), and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 85 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.