Whether the beneficial owner of the capital gains from the transfer of stocks is a person or a duplicate investigation;

It is reasonable to deem that the beneficial owner of the transfer income of the instant shares is a SS corporation that is a party to the instant stock acquisition agreement, and it is reasonable to deem that the tax investigation in 2013 constitutes a duplicate tax investigation.

Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act (Domestic Source Income)

Article 98 (Special Cases of Withholding or Collection for Foreign Corporations)

2015Guhap1528 Revocation, etc. of Disposition of Corporate Tax Collection

000 Stock Company

00. Head of tax office

May 25, 2017

September 14, 2017

1. Corporate tax for the business year 2009 that the Defendant withheld against the Plaintiff on August 7, 2014

The imposition of a surcharge of KRW 115,645,612,260 and a surcharge of KRW 11,564,561,220 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Acquisition of Plaintiff’s stocks by SS corporations

“1) The Plaintiff is a domestic corporation that is engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer, etc. established on May 2, 1998, and BBBB, a BB corporation, is a corporation that engages in the manufacture and sale of beer, and the SSS CommonJ, a SS corporation (former name of the SSSJJJ).

On August 7, 1998, hereinafter referred to as SSB corporation was established by BB corporation. 2) On June 26, 1998, NNB corporation as a subsidiary of NB corporation BB, hereinafter 'SBV' entered into a joint venture agreement with DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'DD') on June 26, 1998, and then acquires 10,000 shares for 10,000 shares for 10,000 shares for 30,000 shares for 1st priority.

3) On August 25, 1998, SSSS corporation acquired the status of a party to the pertinent joint venture agreement from SBV. On December 7, 1999, the SSS corporation acquired 3,200,000 shares and 200 shares shares with the Plaintiff’s general share capital increase, which were issued in addition to the Plaintiff’s capital increase with the Plaintiff’s capital increase on December 7, 199, and purchased 1 share from DD on June 26, 2001.

4) Meanwhile, according to the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s remaining shares by June 21, 2006 by HHHBV, BBB S.A, which is another related company of BB, the Plaintiff’s other related company, the Plaintiff’s common shares of 13,200,001 shares, 300,000 shares of the Plaintiff’s common shares, 20,000 shares of the first-class conversion priority shares, and 11,879,99 shares of HHHBV shares, common shares of 11,879,320,00 shares, and eventually, the Plaintiff’s shares were owned by BBB S.A, and all of the shares issued by the Plaintiff were reverted to the related company of BB corporation (hereinafter “S corporation, etc. through the name of BB corporation and the related company”).

B. Application for the transfer of stocks and non-taxation of SSS corporation of this case

(1) On May 6, 2009, SHHHBV (hereinafter referred to as “R, etc.”) was established as an investment of 4.7 billion won (hereinafter referred to as “SHE”), the SS corporation entered into a contract on acquisition of the Plaintiff’s entire shares with the Ssee, and it was established through RR, etc. through Ssee, a domestic corporation that takes over the status of transferee from Ssee, with the mm 2.7mmm mm m m. (hereinafter referred to as “R, etc.”). On July 23, 2009, the corporation acquired the Plaintiff’s entire shares from 1.7 billion U.S. dollars, 293,298 million U.S. dollars (hereinafter referred to as “S. 4m m. m. 24m m. m. m. m. em m. (hereinafter referred to as “S. em m.”). The transfer price of the shares was 70.2 billion m m em m.

3) Since the mmmm is the beneficial owner of the instant capital gains is BBB corporation, income from stock transfer is taxable only in the country of residence of the transferor and filed an application for non-taxation of capital gains under Article 98-4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) with the head of an OOO on August 4, 2009, by asserting that the said capital gains, which are the domestic source income of a foreign corporation, are non-taxable under Article 13(3) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and BB for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income between the Republic of Korea and the country of residence of the transferor.

4) Meanwhile, on September 14, 2010, the mmm was registered as a merger with the Plaintiff on September 14, 201, and the SSS corporation completed the liquidation on December 26, 201, and thereafter, BB corporation re-acquisitions the Plaintiff in a manner that purchases 100% of the shares of the company, all of the Plaintiff’s shares, around 2014.

(c) Tax investigation, pre-assessment review, etc. on 2009 with regard to mmeter;

1) The director of the regional tax office having the investigation period from October 21, 2009 to December 31, 2009 (it was extended from October 21, 2009 to November 30, 2009) shall conduct a tax investigation related to corporate tax withholding (tax item: tax item: all the items of tax and the investigation period with the duty to make a return: from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 (including the source tax from January 1, 2009 to September 31, 2008); the head of the regional tax office having the authority to conduct a tax investigation related to corporate tax withholding at a distance of 20m for the purpose of verifying whether the source tax was properly paid and paid; the tax amount of capital gains from the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Contracting State of the Republic of Korea for the purpose of tax withholding at 200m (hereinafter referred to as "corporate tax investigation at 209") and the tax amount of capital gains from 2010m among the Government of the United States can be imposed at 3m.

2) On March 2, 2010, the mmm was claimed for a pre-assessment review on March 2, 2010. On October 12, 2010, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to adopt that the “SSS corporation is merely the Do government and the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case is BB corporation, and thus the notice of the results of the tax investigation is erroneous.” Accordingly, the head of the OOO issued a notice of correction of KRW 11.6 billion to the Plaintiff on March 17, 201 by deeming the beneficial owner of the dividend paid to SS corporation from May 13, 2005 to December 11, 2008 as the BB corporation.

D. Tax investigation of the Plaintiff in 2013 and on-site inspection in 2014

1) As the investigation period from March 19, 2013 to June 14, 2013, the commissioner of the regional tax office has been extended from March 19, 2013 to June 14, 2013 (the early investigation period from March 19, 2013 to May 3, 2013) and conducted a tax investigation against the Plaintiff [the items of tax: (a) reported. All items of tax: the investigation period: from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010; (b) expanding the tax investigation scope on June 12, 2013; (c) expanding the tax investigation period from 200 billion won to 200 billion won to the Plaintiff; (d) gift certificates, executive retirement and consultation fees; (e) corporate tax for the business year from March 19, 2013 to 200 billion won to be paid to the Plaintiff; and (e) the Plaintiff’s previous real owner paid 20m of shares to the Plaintiff’s company as above.

2) The director of the regional tax office having jurisdiction over the period of confirmation shall be the Plaintiff from July 30, 2014 to August 5, 2014.

On-site verification [the purpose of confirmation: the Plaintiff’s acquisition of shares in 2009 is to conduct on-site verification in order to verify additional facts that have not been verified by documents submitted in relation to the SS legal entity; hereinafter “on-site verification in 2014”).]

E. Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax

On August 7, 2014, under Article 13 of the SSS Tax Treaty and Article 98 of the former Corporate Tax Act, the head of the OOO tax office regarded the SS corporation as the beneficial owner of the instant capital gains. On the other hand, on August 7, 2014, he/she issued a disposition to collect corporate tax withheld from the Plaintiff at KRW 115,645,612,260 (b) and imposing penalty tax of KRW 11,564,561,220 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant disposition”). On the other hand, the Defendant succeeded to the authority of the head of the OOO tax office on December 30, 2014.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 5, 7 through 10, 19, 24 through 26, 28, 29, 33, Eul's statements, 1, 13, 15, 17 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition shall be revoked on the following grounds.

1) The substance over form principle ought to be applied regardless of whether it is the purpose of tax avoidance, and the substance over form principle

According to the SS corporation, in light of the purpose of the SS corporation’s establishment, details of its business activities, etc., the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case is not only BB corporation but also the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case. Thus, even if the purpose of tax avoidance is required to apply the substance over form principle, the Korea-B Tax Treaty should apply to the transfer income of this case. Even if the purpose of tax avoidance is required for the application of the substance over form principle, the Korea-B Tax Treaty is lower than the BB Tax Treaty on the dividend income of the stocks.In order to be subject to the SSS Tax Treaty, the BB corporation may be deemed to have taken over the stocks of this case through the SS corporation. Therefore, the purpose of tax avoidance is to recognize the dividend income of the stocks of this case, so the substance over form principle is applied to the transfer of the stocks of this case through the SSS corporation, and the beneficial owner of the

2) The pre-assessment review decision has a de facto binding force that should be respected as far as it is not binding or unlawful and unreasonable. However, even though the BB corporation determined in the pre-assessment review decision of this case as the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case, the disposition of this case as the beneficial owner is contrary to the binding or de facto binding force of the above decision, and the plaintiff trusted the above decision corresponding to the public opinion list, and made a correction as to the dividend income of this case by applying the tax rate of BB Tax Treaty. The above disposition is also in violation of the good faith principle.

3) The tax items such as the tax investigation in 2009, the tax investigation in 2013 and the on-site confirmation in 2014 conducted for the same taxable period constitute a duplicate tax investigation, and thus, the instant disposition based thereon is unlawful.

3. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

4. Determination

A. The beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case

1) Article 14 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010) is declared.

The substance over form principle is a practical principle for realizing the principle of equality, which is the basic ideology of the Constitution, in a tax legal relationship. The main purpose of this principle is to regulate unfair acts of tax avoidance and to realize tax justice by enhancing equity in taxation equity by imposing tax on a place with the tax-bearing capacity according to the substance, regardless of the form or appearance, in a case where unreasonable form or appearance separate from the substance is taken for the purpose of evading tax burden (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du8499, Jan. 19, 2012).

The substance over form principle is not in conflict with the principle of no taxation without law, which is the basic principle of tax law, but rather in application of economic living relations with various changes in tax laws to the extent that predictability and legal stability are not undermined, and thus, it is mutually complementary and indivisible with the principle of no taxation without law. If the principle of no taxation without law is excessively expanded and applied, it should be limited to exceptional cases where it is proved that the taxpayer takes an unreasonable form or appearance of transactions that are distinguishable from the substance for the purpose of tax evasion, and thus, the scope of application of the principle of no taxation without law can be invalidated and abused, and thus, the taxpayer’s assertion that the principle of no taxation without law should be applied even if there is no tax avoidance purpose (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Du19564, Nov. 25, 2010; 2005Du6665, Nov. 26, 2006, etc.). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the principle of no taxation without law should be applied is inappropriate.

2) In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances revealed comprehensively considering the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 13 as well as the overall purport of arguments, it is difficult for BB corporation to establish and take over the instant shares for the purpose of tax avoidance. Therefore, there is no room to apply the principle of substantial taxation in this case where SSB corporation established by BB corporation transfers the instant shares to mmmmm, and even if there is a little difference between the form and substance as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the beneficial owner of the said transfer income is a SS corporation that is a party to the instant contract. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the different premise is without merit.

A) Unlike the form of the instant stock acquisition agreement, if BB corporation is deemed the beneficial owner of the instant capital gains, the instant capital gains are considered as the beneficial owner of the instant capital gains. Article 13 of the BB Tax Treaty

In accordance with Paragraph 3, BB, which is the resident state of the BB corporation, was taxed only in BB, which is the resident state of the BB corporation, and thus, BB did not impose tax on the capital gains of the instant transfer, which makes it possible to avoid the tax. On the other hand, in accordance with the language and text of the relevant contract, SS corporation is deemed as the beneficial owner of the said capital gains, while SS corporation is deemed as the beneficial owner of the said capital gains.In accordance with Article 13(3) of the SS Tax Treaty, taxation under the Korean tax law can be imposed in both Contracting States. Therefore, deeming BB corporation as the beneficial owner of the said capital gains goes against the purpose of the principle of substantial taxation to enhance equity in taxation

B) The Plaintiff alleged to the effect that the BB corporation’s acquisition of the instant stocks through the SS corporation had an objective of tax avoidance on the dividend income of the said stocks, but the transfer income of the stocks

In determining who is the beneficial owner, in principle, whether the purpose of tax avoidance exists or not, and according to the above circumstances, it cannot be deemed that BB used the SS corporation for the purpose of tax avoidance on capital gains. Furthermore, in the case where the SS Tax Treaty is applied, the tax on dividend income is reduced compared to the BB Tax Treaty, while the tax on the capital gains of this case to be newly borne is much much larger than that on the other hand, the overall tax burden of the SSS corporation is significantly increased. Therefore, it is difficult to understand that BB corporation established the SS corporation and acquired the stocks of this case for the purpose of avoiding only the tax on the capital gains.

C) Furthermore, SSS corporation is an intermediary holding a large number of subsidiaries and second-tier subsidiaries in China, Hong Kong, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, etc., and has a large number of subsidiaries in China, Malaysia, etc. through mmtd (hereinafter “LLL”) established in Hong Kong in 2002, and transferred the shares of LLL to BBB Ba Ptetd (hereinafter “ABIC”), another subsidiary company of BB corporation prior to the liquidation, thereby transferring the shares of LLL to BBB Ba Ptetd (hereinafter “ABIC”), and it seems difficult to see SSS corporation as an intermediary for the transfer of the shares of this case.

(b) Whether the binding force of the pre-assessment review has been violated.

1) The decision on the claim for pre-assessment review is a system that seeks to prevent unlawful taxation by requiring a taxpayer to raise an objection to the tax previously notified prior to the determination of the tax amount at the pre-assessment stage, which is different from the decision on the request for a review of national tax or the decision on objection to the taxation prior to the determination of the tax amount, and thus, the tax authority’s act at the pre-assessment stage, unlike the decision on the request for a review of tax

2) Furthermore, the beneficial owner of the transfer income of this case is not BB but SB corporation

As seen earlier, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 2, 8, 24, and 26, the defendant can correct errors in the previous decision through newly confirmed data, such as tax investigation data, etc. after the decision of pre-assessment review of this case, and find the fact that the disposition of this case was rendered. Thus, the tax disposition that was issued differently cannot be deemed unlawful merely by the de facto binding force of the decision of pre-assessment review of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the tax authority issued a public opinion expressing that it did not take any measure different from the above pre-assessment decision of pre-assessment review of this case, and it cannot be deemed that the disposition of this case violates the good faith principle.

3) Therefore, it is necessary to examine the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise.

without reason.

C. Whether the prohibition of double tax audit violates the prohibition principle

1) Whether the tax investigation in 2013 constitutes a duplicate tax investigation

A) Article 81-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that "no tax official shall conduct a reinvestigation on the same item of taxation and the same taxable period unless it falls under any of the following subparagraphs," and Article 81-7(1) of the same Act provides that "tax official shall conduct a reinvestigation on the same item of taxation and the same taxable period," and Article 81-9(1) of the same Act provides that "tax official shall not extend the scope of a tax investigation in the course of the investigation except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion exists for several taxable periods or is related to other items of taxation."

Inasmuch as the language and structure of the relevant provisions, and the same tax investigation repeated for the same tax item and taxable period may seriously infringe on taxpayers’ freedom of business and legal stability as well as may lead to the abuse of their authority to conduct a tax investigation, the legislative intent of prohibiting re-audit lies in the advancement of tax investigation technology. In full view of the fact that a tax official has conducted a tax investigation over any specific taxable period of a certain tax item, as well as in the case where a tax official conducts a tax investigation over all items, but conducts a tax investigation again for the same taxable period of a certain tax item, it constitutes a re-investigation prohibited under Article 81-4(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and it does not change merely because a tax official again conducts a tax investigation for other items except for those items originally conducted, and thus, it does not overlap with the content of a tax investigation by conducting a tax investigation again only for those items other than those originally conducted. However, it is unreasonable to view that the initial tax investigation does not constitute a re-audit under Article 81-4(2)16(2)2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

B) In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the tax investigation in 2013 constitutes a double tax investigation, in light of the following circumstances, which can be comprehensively seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments set forth in Nos. 5, 7, 16, A, 7, 8, 25, and 31.

① If the merger of companies takes place, the company’s rights and obligations before the merger shall be comprehensively succeeded to the surviving company after the merger, regardless of whether the transfer is permitted in light of its nature, regardless of the private or public law relationship, and the status of the parties under the Administrative Procedures Act shall also be succeeded to the status of the parties. If the same item of taxation and the same taxable period are repeatedly permitted solely for the reason that the merger occurred, it violates the purpose prohibiting the duplicate tax investigation, and thus, if the tax investigation was conducted on the portion of “corporate tax for the business year of 2009” with respect to the Plaintiff who absorptions a mm-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-m-

② A tax investigation in 2009 was conducted from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008 (including the source tax from January 1, 2009 to September 2009) with respect to all the tax items liable for payment. The tax investigation in 2013 whose scope of investigation has been extended has been conducted on January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2012 with regard to corporate tax. Furthermore, even if the domestic corporation bears the withholding obligation as domestic source income of a foreign corporation, if the tax investigation was conducted on the portion of corporate tax for 2009 at the time of the tax investigation in 2013 to 209 to 31, 200 to 200 to 20 to 20 to 30 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 2 to 20 to 2 to 2 to m.

(3) Although the tax authority’s notice of expansion of the scope of tax investigation for 2013 (No. 25) stated that the type of tax investigation was ‘general investigation’, ‘retirement allowance or advisory fee for officers’, and purchase of raw materials’ for 20 years, it cannot be said that there was no overlap between the transferor’s tax investigation and the transferee of the above 20-year transfer income tax investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Du12062, Feb. 26, 2015). Moreover, even if the transferee of the above 20-year transfer income tax investigation conducted on the part of the 20-year transfer income tax investigation for the purpose of the 20-year transfer income tax investigation, it is difficult to view that there was no additional tax investigation for the 20-year transfer income tax investigation to be conducted by the transferee of the above 20-year transfer income tax (see, e.g., evidence No. 31)., the list of the instant dividend income certificates that the Plaintiff would have paid for the 20-year transfer.

(C) Furthermore, since Article 81-4(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that a double-tax investigation may be conducted where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion," the above provision provides that it shall be strictly limited where it is acknowledged by data supporting objectivity and rationality to a considerable extent (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010). Data required by the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du10461, Dec. 23, 2010). Since the above provision provides that a double-tax investigation was conducted before the tax investigation in 2013, the above provision provides that a double-tax investigation can be conducted only if there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion. Thus, the above provision does not constitute an exceptional one-year corporate tax investigation conducted by the Plaintiff on the part of the 20-year company, which is an exception under Article 81-4(2)4(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

2) Therefore, the instant disposition based on the tax investigation in 2013 is unlawful without a need to further examine whether a field investigation in 2014 constitutes double tax investigation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

Relevant statutes

▣ 구 법인세법

Article 93 (Domestic Source Income)

Domestic source income of a foreign corporation shall be classified as follows:

2. Dividend income provided for in Article 17 (1) of the Income Tax Act (excluding any income provided for in subparagraph 6 of the same paragraph) that is paid in Korea by any domestic corporation, any organization considered as a corporation, or other domestic sources and the amount disposed of as a dividend under Articles 9 and 14 of the Adjustment of International Taxes

10. Stocks, investment shares (including real estate stocks, etc. listed on the securities market under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act), or other benefits falling under any of the following items:

virtual securities (including securities under Article 4 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act). Such securities shall be included.

(n) Income prescribed by Presidential Decree, generated from the transfer of income.

(a) Stocks, subscription certificates, or other securities issued by a domestic corporation; and

(b) Stocks or equity shares issued by a foreign corporation (limited to those listed on the securities market under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act), and those issued by a domestic place of business of a

Other securities

Article 98 (Special Cases for Withholding or Collection for Foreign Corporations)

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 97, a person (excluding a resident or a nonresident who pays income under the provisions of subparagraph 7 of Article 93) who pays a foreign corporation the amount of income (including the amount paid to a foreign corporation having no domestic place of business) that is not actually related to the domestic source income under the provisions of subparagraphs 1, 2, 4 through 7, and 9 through 11 of Article 93, which is not attributed to the domestic place of business, shall withhold the following amount as corporate tax on the income for each business year of the concerned corporation and pay it at the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment, etc. by the 10th of the month following the month in which the date of withholding falls, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree: Provided, That among income under the provisions of subparagraph 5 of Article 93,

3. For income under the provisions of subparagraphs 1, 2, 9 and 11 of Article 93, 20/100 of the amount paid: Provided, That for the interest income accruing from bonds issued by the State, local governments and domestic corporations among the income under subparagraph 1 of Article 93, 14/100 of the amount paid;

4. For income under the provisions of subparagraph 10 of Article 93, 10/100 of the amount paid (for cases falling under the provisions of Article 92 (2) 3, it refers to the arm's length price under the same subparagraph; hereafter in this subparagraph, it shall apply): Provided, That where the acquisition value and transfer expenses of the relevant securities are verified pursuant to the provisions of the proviso of Article 92 (2) 2, it shall be the smaller of the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the amount paid, etc. or the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the amount calculated pursuant to the provisions of the proviso of Article

(2) Where a person who has withheld the corporate tax under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (4) through (7) pays the withheld corporate tax after the time limit for payment expires, he shall additionally pay the amount of additional taxes under the provisions of Article 76 (2).

(3) If the corporate tax on the income for each fiscal year of a foreign corporation under the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (4) through (7) has not been withheld or the withheld amount has not been paid within the time limit under the provisions of paragraph (1), the withholding agent shall collect without delay the amount collected from the withholding agent under the example of collecting the national tax and the amount under the provisions of Article 76 (2) as corporate tax: Provided, That this shall not apply to

Article 98-4 (Application for Non-Taxation, etc. on Income from Sources in Korea by Foreign Corporations) under Article 93 (excluding income under subparagraphs 5 and 6 of the same Article) shall file an application for non-taxation or exemption with the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 122 (Question and Investigation)

A public official engaged in corporate tax-related affairs may, if necessary for the performance of his/her duties, inquire of any of the following persons, or investigate the relevant books, documents and other items or order the submission thereof:

1. A taxpayer or a person deemed to have a tax liability;

2. A withholding agent;

3. Persons liable to submit payment statements and persons liable to submit a list of total invoices by seller and seller;

4. Persons responsible for management or administration under the provisions of Article 109 (2) 3;

5. Any person deemed to have a transaction with a person under subparagraph 1;

6. Trade associations organized by persons liable to pay taxes and corresponding organizations.

7. Corporations that have issued donation receipts.

▣ 구 법인세법 시행령

Article 138-4 (Application for Non-Taxation on Domestic Source Income of Foreign Corporation)

① 법 제93조의2 제3항 또는 제98조의4에 따라 비과세 또는 면제 신청을 하려는 외국법인(비과세 또는 면제 신청을 한 후 계약내용의 변경 등으로 비과세 또는 면제 신청내용이 변경되어 그 변경된 내용으로 신청하려는 외국법인을 포함한다)은 기획재정부령으로 정하는 비과세・면제신청서(이하 이 조에서 비과세・면제신청서 라 한다)를 소득지급자에게 제출하고 해당 소득지급자는 소득을 최초로 지급하는 날의 다음 달 9일까지 소득지급자의 납세지 관할세무서장에게 제출하여야 한다. 다만, 외국법인이 제132조의2에 따른 적격외국금융기관을 통하여 법 제93조의2에 따른 국채등을 취득・보유・양도하는 경우에는 그 적격외국금융기관이 외국법인의 소득금액이 포함된 비과세・면제신청서를 제출할 수 있다.

▣ 한..BBB 조세조약

Article 10. Moderns

1. Dividends paid by corporations which are residents of a Contracting State to residents of the other Contracting State shall be the other Contracting State:

may be taxed at a Contracting State.

2.However, such dividends shall be payable to the Contracting State in which the corporation paying the dividends is a resident.

tax may be imposed in accordance with its laws. However, if the recipient of the dividend is the beneficial owner of the dividend, the tax so imposed shall not exceed 15 per cent of the total amount of dividends.

This paragraph does not affect the taxation of a juridical person on the profits for which such dividends are paid.

Article 13 Transfer Income

1.The profits accruing from the transfer of the immovable property as referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 6 may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the property is located.

2.The benefits accruing from the transfer by an enterprise of a Contracting State of movable property forming a part of the business property of a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State and those accruing from the transfer of such a permanent establishment (in Germany or together with an enterprise) by an enterprise of a Contracting State may be taxed in the other Contracting State: Provided, That a ship or an aircraft operated for international transportation by an enterprise of a Contracting State and from the transfer of a ship or an aircraft attached to the operation of such a vessel or aircraft shall be exempted from taxes in the other Contracting State.

3.The gains accruing from the transfer of any property other than those mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall be taxed only in the Contracting State in which the transferor is a resident.

▣ 한..SSSS 조세조약

Article 10 Distribution of Dividends

1.The dividends paid by a corporation which is a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in the other Contracting State.

2.However, such dividends shall be payable to the Contracting State in which the corporation paying the dividends is a resident.

shall be subject to taxation in accordance with the laws of that State, however, that the recipient shall have the beneficial ownership of such dividends.

If the person is a person, the tax so imposed shall not exceed:

(A) own directly not less than 25 percent of the capital of the corporation paying dividends by the payee;

in the case of a corporation, 10 percent of the total dividend

(B) in other cases 15 percent of the total amount of dividends;

The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall determine by mutual agreement the method of application of such restrictions. The provisions of this paragraph shall not affect the taxation of a corporation on profits for which dividends are paid.

subsection (b).

3.Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, unless Singapore imposes taxes on dividends in addition to taxes on profits or income of a juridical person, dividends paid by a juridical person which is a resident of Singapore to a resident of Korea shall be exempted from the taxation on dividends of a juridical person in addition to taxes on profits or income of a juridical person. However, when Singapore imposes taxes on dividends in addition to taxes on a juridical person's profits or income, the rates provided for in paragraph 2 of this Article shall apply.

7. For dividends:

(a) when paid by a resident of Singapore a juridical person, in Singapore; or

(b) a resident of a Korean juridical person is considered to have occurred in Korea, respectively.

Article 13 Transfer Income

1. Income generated from the transfer of real estate may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the property is located; and

2.The income accruing from the transfer of movable property belonging to a fixed facility in the other Contracting State which is usable by a resident of a Contracting State for the purpose of the transfer of movable property forming part of the business property of a permanent establishment held by an enterprise of a Contracting State in the other Contracting State or the conduct of professional services, and the income accruing from the transfer of such a permanent establishment (the sole or together with an enterprise) or a fixed facility, may be taxed in that other Contracting State.

However, the income accruing to a resident of a Contracting State from the transfer of a vessel or aircraft operated on international traffic and the movable property annexed to the operation of such vessel or aircraft shall be taxed only in that Contracting State.

3. Income accruing from the transfer of property other than that provided for in the preceding paragraph of this Article;

tax may be levied in both Contracting States.

▣ 구 국제조세 조정에 관한 법률(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9914호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 2-2 (Real Taxation to International Trade)

(1) Where the nominal owner and the person to whom it actually belongs are different with respect to the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation in international trades, tax treaties shall apply to such person to whom it actually belongs as a taxpayer.

▣ 국세기본법

Article 14 (Real Taxation) (Provided, That this provision shall not apply to the case before being amended by Act No. 9911 of January 1, 2010)

(1) Where the ownership of income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is merely nominal and a person to whom such ownership belongs exists, tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom such person actually belongs as a taxpayer.

Article 23 (Succession of Tax Liability due to Merger of Corporations)

When a corporation is merged, a corporation surviving a merger or a corporation established by a merger shall be liable to pay national taxes, additional dues and expenses for disposition on default imposed on or to be paid by the corporation extinguished by the merger.

Article 81-4 (Prohibition of Abuse of Right of Tax Investigation)

(1) Any tax official shall conduct a tax investigation to the minimum extent necessary to realize proper and fair taxation and shall not abuse the right of tax investigation for any other purpose.

(2) Tax officials may not conduct reinvestigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period, except in any of the following cases:

1. Where obvious evidence exists that prove a suspicion of tax evasion;

2. Where it is necessary to investigate a trading partner;

Article 81-7 (Advance Notice of Tax Investigation and Request for Postponement)

(1) Where a tax official conducts a tax investigation (excluding an investigation of a tax offense under the Procedure for the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act), he/she shall notify a taxpayer subject to such investigation (where a taxpayer designates a tax manager and reports it to the head of the competent tax office pursuant to Article 82, referring to a tax manager; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article) of the items of taxation to be investigated, the period and reason for the investigation, and other matters prescribed by Presidential Decree ten days prior to commencement of the investigation: Provided, That this shall not apply where

Article 81-9 (Restriction on Extension of Scope of Tax Investigation)

(1) A tax official shall not extend the scope of a tax investigation under progress, except in cases prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as where it is confirmed that specific suspicion of tax evasion exists for several taxable periods or is related to other items of tax.

▣ 행정절차법

Article 10 (Succession to Status)

(2) When corporations which are parties, etc. are merged, the corporation surviving the merger or the newly established corporation, etc. after the merger shall succeed to the status of parties.