The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant regarding the imposition of corporate tax for the business year 2001 and 2002 shall be reversed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 132(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18174, Dec. 30, 2002) under the delegation of Article 93(5) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18174, Dec. 30, 2003) provides that “Any of the following income generated from a foreign country shall be deemed to be included in the domestic source business income of a foreign corporation.” As one of such income under subparagraph 1 of Article 93 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18174, Dec. 30, 200; hereinafter “income

B. The lower court acknowledged the following facts: ① (a) the Plaintiff, a foreign corporation whose head office is located in Hong Kong, opened a deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff’s head office in order to recover the prices of the chemical products sold in Korea and to support the Plaintiff’s sales funds necessary for the Plaintiff’s branch, a domestic business place; (b) the Plaintiff received a deposit of surplus funds from the Plaintiff’s branch or lent funds to the Plaintiff branch in the name of the Plaintiff’s head office, thereby deeming the amount of KRW 1,186,315,578 as the interest accrued during the period from 1999 to 2003 as the interest accrued during the business year from 199 to 2003; and (c) reported corporate tax to the tax authorities in Hong Kong as corporate tax; and (d) the Defendant deemed the Plaintiff’s head office as the document name and deemed the said interest and interest paid to the Plaintiff as the income accrued from each of the instant dispositions, such as imposing corporate tax for the pertinent business year.

Furthermore, the lower court: (a) it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s head office as a document company merely because the Plaintiff’s head office holds a board of directors and performs its independent activities, such as distributing dividends; and (b) the Plaintiff’s head office manages funds