E. Mexico (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Sung-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Head of Seocho Tax Office

August 28, 2014

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap27695 decided April 4, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of value-added tax of KRW 1,542,217,370 (including additional tax of KRW 795,05,235) for the first term of July 15, 2010 against the plaintiff and the imposition of value-added tax of KRW 148,878,130 for the second term of November 17, 2010 (including additional tax of KRW 17,074,288) for the second term of KRW 1,542,217,370 for the first term of July 15, 2010 shall be revoked, respectively.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This court's reasoning is, among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, written in part as follows, and the reasoning for the plaintiff's argument is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (3) below, and therefore, it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (Provided, That among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning "self-supply" and "the time of supply for services" that the plaintiff withdrawn from

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Of the tables No. 17 of the first instance judgment No. 5, the part “total” in the column “1 portion in 2013” shall be deemed to read “1 portion in 2003”, and the part “2 period portion in 2013” shall be deemed to read “2 period portion in 2003”.

(b) The part “AMF LPC” in Part 8 of the 8th judgment of the first instance court shall be referred to as “AMF”.

C. Part 6-11 of the decision of the court of the first instance shall be written in the following manner:

【Murder, according to Article 4(1) and (4) of the former Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7007 of Dec. 30, 2003), Article 4(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18175 of Dec. 30, 2003), Article 94(1) and (2) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7005 of Dec. 30, 2003), where a foreign corporation has a fixed place in which it carries out all or part of its business in Korea, the foreign corporation has a domestic place of business in the supply of services for more than 6 months. In the supply of services through employees, the place where services are provided for more than 6 months in total (Article 94(2)5(a) of the former Corporate Tax Act), and Article 4(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18175 of Dec. 30, 200)

D. On the 14th 12-14th 14th 14th 2th 14th 14th 2th 14th 2th 14th 14th 2th 14th 14th 14th 2th 14th 2th 14th 2th 14th 2th 2th 2th 14th 14th 2th 14th 2th 14th 2th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 1

E. The part of the first instance judgment No. 16 of the 14th trial decision stated to the effect that the payment was received, but the following circumstances, which can be known as the facts cited earlier and evidence, were stated.

F. Article 15-7-9 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance provides that “The Plaintiff, as a foreign corporation, has the same appearance as the transfer of the service of this case to APIL without a domestic place of business, and there is a tax interest that can avoid domestic taxation.” The part in the first instance judgment includes

G. No. 9-11 of the judgment of the court of first instance: "The tax authority of this case shall not be deemed contradictory to the disposition of this case relating to the services prior to the concession agreement because the No. 9-11 of the judgment of the court of first instance imposed the No. 15 of the judgment on the services after the concession agreement," "The tax authority of this case shall not be deemed contradictory to the disposition of this case relating to the services prior to the concession agreement." However, the tax authority of this case shall not accept the judgment that the subsequent disposition of this case is unlawful since it did not recognize that the provision of the services subject to the disposition of this case, which is subject to the disposition of this case, is identical to the subsequent disposition of this case, for the purpose of performing the obligations under the concession agreement with the government of the Republic of Korea on the Incheon Educational Development, which was entered into with the APL on June 13, 2003.

3. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff has no domestic disposal authority or use authority, and the Plaintiff’s business place, which is a subsidiary that performs its own business activities as a separate legal entity, cannot be seen as the Plaintiff’s domestic business place. Therefore, the instant disposition of imposition based on the Defendant’s trend, based on the premise that the Plaintiff’s domestic permanent establishment exists, is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proof as to the facts requiring a taxation should be borne by the imposing authority. However, even if there is no direct evidence as to the facts requiring a taxation, if the existence of a taxation requirement can be presumed based on an indirect trend that can be reasonably explained in light of the empirical rule based on the indirect facts, etc. Therefore, inasmuch as indirect facts can be found in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit, unless the other party to the disposition imposing a tax prove the facts that the facts are not subject to the empirical rule or there are special circumstances that may exclude the application of the empirical rule in the pertinent case, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is illegal disposition that does not meet the taxation requirement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Du6383, Sep. 22, 2006; 2010Du2378, Aug. 17, 2012).

(2) According to the legal principles as seen earlier and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 10, 11, and 20 (number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply) and evidence Nos. 7 through 9, the Plaintiff, a subsidiary company of the AMF Group, may not be deemed to have been registered as the representative director of the 2-year office of the 2-year government office of the 2-year government office of the 2-year government office of the 2-year government office of the 2-year government office of the 1-government government office of the 2-year government office of the 1-government government office of the 2-year government office of the 1-government government office of the 2-year government office of the 2-government government office of the 2-year government office of the 1-government government office of the 2-year government office of the 2-government government office of the 1-government government office of the 2-year government office of the 2-government government office of the 2-government government office of the Incheon.

(3) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the basis of such different premise is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as above. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed.

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) Gangwon-gu

Note 1) On the record, the aforementioned “7,074,288 won” appears to be erroneous in the “7,074,268 won” (see Evidence No. 9-2 and Evidence No. 1-2).