Cho Jae-2017-west-2238 ( December 26, 2017)

Whether chain transaction of this case constitutes a processing transaction

The chain transaction of this case constitutes a processing transaction of this case, comprehensively taking into account all circumstances, such as the purpose, details, and mode of the transaction, the subject to whom benefits accrue, the process of movement of goods, the payment of consideration, etc., by each transaction.

Article 60 of the Value-Added Tax Act

2018Guhap58776 revocation of disposition of imposing corporate tax, etc.

AA and 3 others

Head of △ District Office

July 11, 2019

August 27, 2019

1. The part in the [Attachment 2] of the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff AA, Inc., shall be dismissed.

2. All of the plaintiffs' remaining claims and the remaining plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition disposition of the Defendant on △△△△△△△△. △△△△△, the Plaintiffs [Attachment 1], stating the remaining tax amount (including additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Plaintiff BB (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff BB”), Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “PlaintiffCC”), Plaintiff DD (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff DD”), Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff DD”), and Plaintiff BB,CC, and DD (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff affiliate”) with a special relationship with Plaintiff AA (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff AA”), are corporations that operate transportation business after registering their business in Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and mainly purchased asphalt for road packaging from domestic and foreign fixed markets, such as OIL, and export them to China.

B. The Plaintiffs, in principle, directly sell asphalt (likely similar ? Plaintiff AA and affiliated companies). However, some of the Plaintiffs engaged in a connection transaction between the third parties, such as △, Inc. in the middle, and hereinafter referred to as “the instant chain transaction”).

"다. □□지방국세청장은 △△△△.△.△.부터 △△△△.△.△.까지 원고들에 대한 법인통합조사를 실시한 뒤, ① 이 사건 체인거래에 대하여 주식회사 □□, 주식회사 ★★, 주식회사 ○○(이하 '□□', '★★', '○○'이라 한다) 등 제3자를 낀 거래는 재화의 이동이 없는 거래로서 원고 AA이 특수관계법인 원고 DD에게 지급한 고가운임을 정당화하려는 거래이고, 이 사건 체인거래에 참여한 제3자의 외형부풀리기를 위한 거래이므로 제3자의 매입・매출분 합계 ○○○원 상당액(이하 '이 사건 매입・매출분'이라 한다)을 가공거래에 해당한다고 보고, ② CC을 제외한 원고들 이 홍콩법인 aa(이하 'aa'라 한다)와 bb(이하 'bb'라 한다)에 지급한 용선중개수수료 ○○○원(이하 '이 사건 중개수수료'라 한다)은 실제로 용역을 제공받지 않고 지급한 비용으로 보아 손금불산입하라는 등의 과세자료1)를 피고에게 통보하였다.",라. 이에 따라 피고는 △△△△.△.△.① 원고들에게 이 사건 매입・매출분을 가공거래로보아 해당금액의 2%인 부가가치세(가산세)를 아래 [표 1] 기재와 같이 가가치세(가산세) 합계 ○○○원을 경정・고지하였고(이하 '이 사건 제1처분'이라 한다), ② 원고 CC을 제외한 원고들에게 aa와 bb에게 지급한 이 사건 중개수수료를 손금불산입하여 아래 [표 2] 기재와 같이 법인세(가산세 포함) 합계 ○○○원을 경정・고지(이하 '이 사건 제2처분'이라 한다)하는 것을 포함하여 □□지방국세청장이 송부한 과세자료에 따라 별지 [표 1] '당초고지세액'란 기재와 같이 법인세(가산세 포함) 및 부가가치세(가산세 포함)를 각 경정・고지하였다(이하 '이 사건 종전 처분'이라 한다).

E. The plaintiffs dissatisfied with the previous disposition of this case and filed a request for judgment with the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△. The Tax Tribunal cannot be deemed to have paid the freight in excess of the market price of Plaintiff AA, BB, andCC, and thus, Plaintiff BB andCC cannot be deemed to have supplied export agency services on the part of Plaintiff A and D with respect to the purchase and export of asphalt from Plaintiff A and D, and thus, Plaintiff B and D cannot be deemed to have supplied export agency services on the basis of value added tax base. The issuance of the tax invoice for the chain transaction of this case is subject to the penalty tax for false tax invoice failure, but it is deemed to be subject to the penalty tax for false tax invoice failure, and the decision of rejection was made on the remainder of the claims. After that, the defendant made a reduction and correction as stated on February 1, 2018 [Attachment 1], and only the previous disposition of this case 1 and 2 of this case became remaining.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 8

each entry, the whole purport of the pleading, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

For the following reasons, the first and second dispositions of this case are all unlawful.

1) Regarding the first disposition of this case

① The Chinese importer of the asphalt was seeking transactions with a variety of customers;

(2) Domestic standings shall, in order to reduce transaction risks, have quantities to the existing business partners such as Plaintiffs AA.

(3) In the case of a third party whose price fluctuations are so large that they may export the goods.

In cases where it is difficult for the Plaintiffs to purchase asphalt again from a third party, the Plaintiffs are to purchase it. 4

The chain transaction of this case can establish a global export business network in cooperation with △, etc. due to the chain transaction of this case

The sales opportunities could have been expanded, and 5 Specifically, △△ has been resold to the original plaintiffs.

In order to sell to China, not to China, but to secure trust in China's asphalt market;

지 못하여 재고부담 때문에 원고들에게 다시 매도하게 된 것이고, ★★, ○○도 마찬가지인 점, ⑥ 제3자는 실제 거래상 위험을 부담하고 이 사건 체인거래를 하였던 점, ⑦ 재화의 인도는 점유 이전 이외에도 점유개정, 목적물반환청구권의 양도와 같은 관념적인 방법을 포함하는 것인 점 등에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 체인거래를 가공거래로 볼 수 없다. 따라서 이와 다른 전제에 선 이 사건 제1처분은 위법하다.

In addition, the Defendant: (a) considered Plaintiff AA’s tax base for the second two years of value-added tax (additional tax); (b) considered Plaintiff A as the ○○○○○○○○○○; and (c) imposed the revised tax invoice on Plaintiff A and △△△△△△△△. △△△△△△△; (d) issued the revised tax invoice to the △△△△△△△△△; and (e) reduced the value of supply to the ○○○○○○○○; and thus, (c) accordingly,

2) Regarding the second disposition of this case

① The Plaintiff AA, BB, andCC received brokerage and export support services from the Plaintiff A and B in connection with the Chinese asphalt export business, and provided the instant brokerage commission. ② The first zz Co. Ltd (hereinafter “zz”) established at △△△△△△△△△. △△△△△△△, and offered the As such, the Chinese government received brokerage commission through A because it does not include the scope of brokerage commission granted from the Chinese government, and subsequently, the Plaintiff AA was established at △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and thereafter, paid brokerage commission to A., ③ the Plaintiff AB andCC, and ③ the payment of brokerage commission to the Plaintiff A andCC was made on the premise that the act of paying the sales brokerage service of z was not a loss to the Plaintiff A or BB, ④ the prosecution and the instant sales service contract was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff B and the instant sales service contract, and thus, the Plaintiff B had been established in the name of △△△△○.

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

C. Whether the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition of revocation in the attached Table 2 is legitimate among the lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff A

action seeking confirmation or revocation of an administrative disposition has interests in action at the time of filing the action

Even if applicable, ex officio revocation of an administrative disposition which is subject to dispute by the agency during the proceeding of the lawsuit.

such disposition loses its effect and does not exist any longer, so it does not exist.

An appeal litigation against a disposition is, in principle, deemed unlawful on the ground that the benefit of lawsuit is extinguished.

must be (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Du5317, Sept. 28, 2006).

The disposition of imposition in the [Attachment 2] of the Plaintiff Marin, 199, is null and void as the Defendant revoked and loses its validity on △△△△△. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit on this part is unlawful (Therefore, the argument that the Plaintiff’s ○○○ source should be excluded from the tax base following the issuance of the revised tax invoice among the Plaintiff’s assertion is not further determined).

D. Determination on the merits

1) Judgment on the first disposition of this case

A) Facts of recognition

(1) Administrative cases, etc. concerning ○○

A tax invoice issued or issued by ○○○ constitutes a processing tax invoice in the name of a real transaction, since it is reasonable to view that the issues issued or issued by ○○○ in the trading process (1) is a transaction between Plaintiff AA and ○○, and 2, a transaction between Plaintiff AA and ○○, and (2) a transaction between Plaintiff CCC and ○○○, without a real transaction. Therefore, the pertinent disposition of this case, which corrected the tax amount on such premise and imposed additional tax on non-performance of a tax invoice, is lawful.

In regard to the issue transaction ①

Between the Plaintiff A and China, the actual negotiations and contracts for the asphalt export transaction were made between the Plaintiff A and China, by means of Plaintiff AA’s ○○○ and ○○○○, and ○○○ signed and sealed the written contract sent by ○○○ by e-mail, and only received or issued a tax invoice according to the form of transaction notified.

(c)

Although Plaintiff A could engage directly in the asphalt export transaction with China, the head of △△△△△△△ Tax Office (A) issued or issued a tax invoice issued by ○○○ on the ground that the part related to ○○ in the chain transaction of this case was processed and traded with respect to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and that the tax invoice issued or issued by ○○○○ was a false tax invoice, the value-added tax for the first half-year value-added tax for the ○○○○○ (including additional tax for unfaithful tax invoice; hereinafter the same shall apply), the value-added tax for the second year for the ○○○○○○, the value-added tax for the second year for the ○○○○○○, the value-added tax for the first year for the ○○○○, and the value-added tax for the second year for the ○○○○○ (hereinafter the “instant related disposition”).

(B) In response to the instant disposition, ○○○ filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Administrative Court on the revocation of the instant related disposition against the head of △△△△△△. However, the Seoul Administrative Court (○○○ Joint○○○○○○) rendered a judgment dismissing the claim of △△△△△△. △△△△△△.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant judgment”). ○○○ filed an appeal with the Seoul High Court. However, the Seoul High Court (200○○○○○○) dismissed the appeal on △△△△△△. The Seoul High Court filed an appeal with the Supreme Court on △△△△△△△. However, the Supreme Court (200○○○○○○○) dismissed the appeal by the △△△△△△△△△△△△ on △△△△△△, and thereafter, the relevant judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

(2) The current status and equity structure of Plaintiff A, etc.

(A) The Plaintiff AA purchased asphalt from the domestic oil refinery after its establishment of △△△△. △△△. The Plaintiff AA purchased asphalt from the domestic oil refinery.

○○○ is the representative director of China, who is a company that engages in the business of exporting to China.

A person who takes overall charge of overseas business, such as the management of funds, investment, business, ship management, etc.

In general, this article focuses on.

(B) In addition to the Plaintiff AA, ○○○ and Y (hereinafter referred to as “x”) established and operated the Plaintiff BB, D,CC, and x (hereinafter referred to as “x”) jointly as indicated in the following table.

(C) The Plaintiffs are the same location of the head office, and only keep separate accounting accounts, and operated as one company by sharing human and material facilities.

(D) The main contents of the income statement for the year between 200 and 200 of the plaintiffs andx-200 are as follows. D as a shipping enterprise, subject to the special exception of Article 104-10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 16009, Dec. 24, 2018; hereinafter the same) which imposes corporate tax on shipping income, with respect to shipping income, the total net income for the year between 200 and 200 billion won was paid to 00 million won.

(3) Type, etc. of chain transactions in the instant case

(A) Plaintiff A exports most of the asphalt volume purchased through a negotiated contract from domestic refinery to China, and ○○○○○, a representative director, who had worked for 200○○○○○○○○ Company, maintained a dynamic relationship with China, and has a unique business network in the region of the region of China. Accordingly, Plaintiff A and related companies led and decided to negotiate on all matters, such as the time of the export contract with the Republic of China, unit price, volume, and quality for the export contract with the Republic of China. ○○ takes into account the limit of the amount of the export letter of credit, while distributing the amount of the asphalt export from the intention to maintain the status of a small and medium enterprise to related companies.

(B) The head of ○○○, the head of the petroleum product business team of Plaintiff AA, determined the specific form of transaction between domestic oil refinery and Chinese Chinese-style language, and sent each phase of transaction contract by e-mail to the relevant parties, ○○○, ○○, etc. involved in the transaction, and notified the matters necessary for the transaction, such as unit price, quantity, shipping fares, shipping date, and the exchange rate for the application of the tax invoice. The purchase confirmation necessary for applying the zero-rate tax rate and the issuance of invoices for the settlement of payment was managed.

(C) The chain transaction of this case purchased asphalt from the domestic oil refinery

In selling the above asphalt to a third party, such as △△, and then re-assign from a third party.

Purchase and sale to China was made in the form of sale. In addition, Swiftships exclusively for export purposes.

Since they are transported through vessels, there is a large portion of the exclusive shipping fare in the cost of export, and they are involved in the transaction.

여한 원고 AA과 관계사들, □□, ○○, ★★은 아스팔트 수출시 그 운송을 원고 DD에 위탁하고 고가의 운임을 지급하였다.

(D) Specifically, during the chain transaction of this case, △△△△. △△△. The Plaintiff AA’s export transaction is involved in the export transaction.

the transaction structure is in the form of ‘regularly similar ? Plaintiff AA ? Plaintiff D ? Overseas Faba.’

The structure of the transaction is as follows.

According to the above transaction structure, Jeong supplied Part with each FOB (FREE OBD: the seller bears the cost and the charge until the seller loads the goods on his/her ship) on condition that the seller bears the cost and risks until he/she loads the goods on his/her ship. After the supply of PFR (other than COTSND FREGHT: the seller bears the cost and risks until he/she loads the goods on his/her ship, the seller bears the freight charges for the port of destination) to Do Governor. Accordingly, Do Governor bears the cost of transportation upon entering into the transportation service with the Plaintiff DD. Accordingly, Do Governor supplied PF (COTS INFCFFIGHT) on condition that the seller bears the cost and the freight charges and the insurance charges until he/she loads the goods on his/her ship).

(마) 한편, 원고 AA은 국내 정유사로부터 구입한 아스팔트 물량을, ① 직접 중국 바이어에게 수출하는 형태, ② 특수관계가 있는 관계사들을 거쳐 중국 바이어에게 수출하는 형태, ③ 특수관계가 없는 □□, ○○, ★★, ◎◎을 거쳐 중국 바이어에게 수출하는 형태로 아스팔트 수출업을 영위하였는데, 이 사건 체인거래는 ③형태에 속하고, 각 수출 형태별 거래금액은 아래 표 기재와 같다.

(4) Statements, etc. of relevant persons

(A) The ○○○, a representative of the △△△△△△. △△△. In the course of investigation, “the chain in the instant case” is the chain.

The transaction requested the volume of the asphalt to Plaintiff A for the export performance at the time, and the Assign's request was made.

It stated to the effect that ○○ was conducted by introducing ○○ as there is no market, and that it was not benefiting from chain business.

(B) The PlaintiffCC’s shareholder, stated to the effect that “○○○○”, in the course of the △△△△△△. In the process of the tax investigation, there was a law on the day-to-day cycle of the △△△△△△△, and such law was applied, and that “the transaction of asphalt goods was commenced through Plaintiff D through the multiple sales of the goods through Plaintiff D.”

(C) During the process of the investigation of △△△△△, Plaintiff A’s employee, ○○○, stated to the effect that “the Plaintiff’s know-how in the process of the investigation of △△△△△△△△,” the Plaintiff’s interests in the asphalt market, procedural duties related to the export, and ensuring the fry, etc., and that 40% of the profits remaining from the △△ in the instant chain transaction with △△ was a structure where Plaintiff A would bring about 40% of the profits remaining from the △△

(D) ○○○, who is an employee of △△△△, is a staff member of △△△. △△△△△△. △△△△△. In the course of tax investigation, ○○

'The benefit was 40% in return for receiving assistance from the plaintiff AA, and the original △△ was China

Although the asphalt was directly marked to the language, it was stated to the effect that, from the △△△△ to the △△△△, Plaintiff BB,CC, and D were sold in full.

(E) The representative of the ○○○○○ stated to the effect that “○○○○ was involved by ○○○○ upon request of the competent ○○○○ official due to the difficulties of the principal’s business in the process of the △△△△△.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 10 to 14, 17, 22 to 24 each

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

B) Determination

(1) The former Value-Added Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 14387, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Value-Added Tax Act provides for "the supply of goods" as taxable subject to value-added tax, and Article 9

subsection 1 of section 1 provides that the supply of goods shall be delivered on all contractual or legal grounds; or

The transfer is defined as ‘value added tax'. The characteristics of value added tax as multi-stage transaction tax are as follows.

In light of the facts, the "delivery or transfer" under Article 9 (1) of the former Value-Added Tax Act is the substance.

(b) transfer the right to use and consume goods, regardless of the existence of any profit derived from such use;

including all acts causing the body, and substantial transactions between any series of transactions;

Whether it is a nominal transaction without the delivery or transfer of goods or whether it is a nominal transaction by each transaction.

The purpose, details and attitudes of the transaction, the subject of the interest, the process of movement of goods, and payment of the price;

It should be individually and specifically determined by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant circumstances such as relation (Supreme Court Decision 192Da111, 2012)

15. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8263, supra)

In addition, the issue of the tax invoice was prepared in a false manner without a real transaction, or the tax invoice

It is proved by the tax authority that the entries are different from the facts, and the real property is proved to a considerable extent.

The authenticity of the transaction or the entry of the tax invoice is disputed, and the taxpayer asserts.

If the transaction described in the tax invoice has been proved to be significantly false, the tax invoice shall

Account Book and Certificate with respect to the actual transaction with a supplier or a person being supplied.

It is necessary to prove that it is easy for the taxpayer to present all materials such as ice(s).

Seoul High Court Decision 94Nu3407 decided July 14, 1995; Supreme Court Decision 2012Du20618 Decided December 11, 2014

[Reference]

(2) In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the above facts and the purport of the entire argument, the chain transaction in this case constitutes a processing transaction, and thus, the prior plaintiffs' assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① The Seoul Administrative Court rendered a judgment dismissing a claim seeking revocation of the imposition of value-added tax by ○○ on the ground that the asphalt transaction between Plaintiff A and ○○ constitutes a processing transaction among the chain transaction in the instant case, and the said judgment became final and conclusive after filing an appeal and final appeal by ○○○.

② With respect to the chain transaction of this case, the actual export process for the Chinesebain was conducted by both the Plaintiffs. Specifically, the actual negotiations and contracts for the asphalt export transaction were conducted by Plaintiff AA’s ○○○○ and ○○○○○○. In particular, ○○ was only the act of issuing or issuing a tax invoice in accordance with the form of transaction signed by ○○○ and sent by e-mail.

③ Although the Plaintiffs are able to engage in the export transaction of asphalt directly with China, they seem to have avoided the gift gains accrued during the sunset period, and made the chain transaction in this case where: (a) the Plaintiffs, a shipping company, as a shipping company, paid a high-priced rate of corporate tax to the Plaintiff DD, which is relatively low in order to be subject to the special exception that imposes corporate tax according to the vessel standard profit for shipping income pursuant to Article 104-10 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and put a third party into the middle.

④ Furthermore, the intermediate profits earned by third parties, such as △ or ○○, are considerably small, and even the Plaintiff A recovered 40% of the profits of △△, without any particular reason, from the intermediate profits.

⑤ In fact, at the time of the export of asphalt, the determination of the contract negotiation, unit price, volume, etc. was made directly between Plaintiff A and China. It is difficult to deem that the third parties, such as Plaintiff A and ○, did not directly take over the asphalt and did not have any sales place other than the Plaintiffs, and thus, did not have any sales place other than the Plaintiffs, it is difficult to deem that there was a substantial transaction risk arising from the transaction process.

6. The Plaintiffs demanded the above forms of transaction by Chinese-China and domestic oil refining.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and there is no pecuniary profit that △○ or ○○ gains from the chain transaction of this case, and even if it was obtained from the export performance or transaction performance required at the time of the transaction of the bank through the above transaction, it is difficult to view the chain transaction of this case as the genuine transaction.

2) Judgment on the second disposition of this case

A) Facts of recognition

“(1) Aaa was established at △△△△△△△△△. △△△△△△△. ○○, the representative director of the Plaintiff AA, made investments in the capital of 1 Hong Kong and acquired one share, and later transferred the same to △△△△△△△△△. △△△△△△, the Hong Kong accounting corporation, vlied (hereinafter “V”). △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

At the time of the establishment, the trade name was ○○○ LIITD, but △△△△△. △△△△. bb was changed to ○○.

(2) ○○○○ is a brokerage corporation in China while working in the zz, and △△△△△. △△△△△. A brokerage corporation in China.

"zz" was established, and all shares of z are ○○○○ ownership, and (3) the details of brokerage commission paid by Plaintiffs AA, B, andCC to Aa and B are as follows.

(4) The e-mail content of ○○○ related to aa and B is as follows:

(5) With respect to the instant brokerage commission paid to Plaintiff AA and B in the course of the tax investigation, ○○○ prepared a written confirmation that: (a) the Plaintiff AA and B paid the instant brokerage commission in the course of the tax investigation to the Hong Kong corporation designated by the opposite contractual party for the purpose of facilitating the transactional relationship with BB; and (b) the Plaintiff BB paid the commission in the name of the commission for the purpose of facilitating the transactional relationship with BB.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 19 to 21, purport of the whole pleadings

B) Determination

(1) The former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13555, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter the same)

Section 1 of Article 19 provides that deductible expenses shall be refunded to capital or financing, disposal of surplus funds, and under this Act.

transaction that reduces the net assets of the corporation, except as the case may be.

subsection (2) provides that the amount of losses under paragraph (1) shall be the amount of losses under this Act and other Acts.

in connection with the business of the corporation except as otherwise provided by this section.

or expenses generally accepted or directly related to profit.

"......"

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a corporate tax disposition, the tax authority bears the burden of proving the legality of the taxation disposition and the existence of the facts requiring taxation, and thus, the tax authority shall also bear the burden of proving the gross income and deductible expenses for each business year, which serves as the basis of the tax base, as a matter of principle. However, in cases where it is proved by the tax authority that the other party to the payment of deductible expenses or the amount reported as deductible expenses was false or failed to meet the requirements for deductible expenses, the burden of proving that such expenses were actually paid or deductible expenses were met due to other circumstances, in light of the concept of fairness (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du23341, Aug. 20, 2014).

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the instant brokerage commission paid to A and B is difficult to be considered as consideration for service performance under A and B, in view of the aforementioned facts acknowledged, the statement of No. 19, and the purport of the entire pleadings. Accordingly, the first Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① When examining the e-mail content of ○○○, a Hong Kong corporation established with the capital of USD 1 Hong Kong, and the confirmation document written by ○○○○, it appears that ○○○ appears to specifically instruct the financial statements of A or the revenue distribution of bb, it is reasonable to view that the above corporation is a corporation substantially controlled by ○○○.

② The sum of the instant brokerage commission paid by the Plaintiff AA, BB, andCC to the Plaintiff A and B is equivalent to the amount of ○○○○○, and the fact that the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○, who has an exclusive business network, led and decided to negotiate all matters, such as the unit price, quantity, and quality, in the export of the Plaintiff’s asphalt, is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence as to whether aa and B have any human and material organization and have performed brokerage services. Moreover, there is no evidence as to whether a and B have provided services to Plaintiff A, B, andCC separately from the performance of ○○○○○○○○○○○’s business, and there is no material about the intent to contact the Plaintiff’s business and the specific process of performing services between A and B.

③ The Plaintiffs asserted that aa was paid fees for the initial z intermediary services, and that the same applies to the amount that aa received out of the instant brokerage commission.

However, there was no specific data on the performance of intermediary services in aa, and zzaa is also subject to za.

In light of the fact that ○○ is a company controlled by ○○, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion was accepted.

It is difficult to do so.

④ The Plaintiffs asserts that B had actually performed brokerage services by B as a company under the control of ○○○○○. However, as seen earlier, B appears to be a company under the control of ○○○○○○○, the mediation service agreement (Evidence A 19) submitted by the Plaintiffs was made between PlaintiffCC (Representative director: ○○) and B, and it is difficult to readily believe the authenticity thereof, and there is no material on which B had provided specific brokerage services with any human and material facilities as seen earlier. In full view of the above, the Plaintiffs’ above assertion is difficult.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the disposition of imposition of attached Table 2 in the lawsuit of Plaintiff A is unlawful and low in the part concerning the disposition of imposition

and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs AA and the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are justified.

Therefore, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.