Korea C&T Bank (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of Nam-gu Tax Office (Law Firm Namsan, Attorneys Lee Chang-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

July 12, 2017

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap61221 decided February 2, 2017

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of withholding corporate tax (including additional tax) listed in the attached Table 1 of the first instance court's decision against the plaintiff on March 11, 2013 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows. The purport of the claim is as follows.

B. Defendant

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted to the first instance court is different from the evidence submitted to this court, the judgment of the first instance is deemed legitimate. The grounds for appeal by the court of first instance are as stated in the grounds for the judgment of the first instance, except for the revision of the pertinent part among the judgment of the first instance as follows 2. Thus, this is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the

2. Revised parts

○ From 26th to 15th of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows.

According to the following facts: “SP. 38 U.S. residents at the time of payment of each of the instant dividend income [the Defendant asserts that data submitted by the Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize the final investors as U.S. residents. However, it is sufficient to recognize that the final investors are U.S. residents, taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap’s No. 4,36,37, 43, and 44 (including numbers)], among the instant dividend income, there is no objective evidence that the instant dividend income would have been distributed to the final investors according to the above final investors’ shares [the Defendant is not deemed to have been distributed to the U.S. residents of 4]. However, it is reasonable to consider that there is no objective evidence that the final investors would have been distributed to the final investors of 4 U.S. at the time of delivery of the instant dividend income at the time of 20 U.S. investors’ respective dividend income from the point of time of payment of the instant dividend income to 30 U.S. residents’ dividends.

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and all appeals by the plaintiff and defendant are dismissed.

Judges Kim Yong-Ih (Presiding Judge)