Twit-Link Pteti (Attorneys White-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Head of the District Tax Office (Attorney Lee Jae-in et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

March 27, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of KRW 2,803,592,540 (including additional tax) for the business year 2009 against the Plaintiff on July 2, 2010 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased bonds issued by a domestic company from the Hong Kong branch (hereinafter “CS”) and received redemption as indicated in the Table 1> and Table 2> below.

Section CB. CB. 2,676,960 US dollars 2,60 on July 9, 2009 to 25, 2009 to 19.8,746,916 US$ B. 80 on August 17, 2009 to 20.6 US$ 20.6,60 on July 13, 2009 to 20.6 US$ 20,65 US$ 36.6,5 US$ 20 on July 28, 2009 to 30,6 US$ 20,65 US$ 9.6,40 on August 24, 2009, to 30 US$ 20,65 US$36.6,9,500 on July 13, 200, to 30,609 to 36 US$20,50,00 on May 13, 2009.

* CBond: CBond Bonds and Bonds with Warrants

* RBS: RBS Bank Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "RBS").

NAB CB 27 March 27, 2009; 1,632,931,506 Mez BW Baz B on June 29, 2009; NAW 23,400,000 on March 23, 2009

B. On July 2, 2010, the Defendant imposed and notified corporate tax of KRW 2,803,592,540 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on the ground that “actual management place is in Korea and is a domestic corporation.” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection on September 28, 2010, but was dismissed by the Director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on July 8, 2011. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 11, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) Plaintiff

(A) After establishment in accordance with the laws and regulations of Singapore in 2000, it has been engaged in business activities while keeping bank accounts, accounting books, etc. in Singapore; it has faithfully performed various taxes and public charges pursuant to the laws and regulations of Singapore; Non-party 1, the largest shareholder and representative director, continues to engage in business activities and workplace activities in Singapore since 2000; Non-party 1, who has settled with his family members in Singapore and operates the plaintiff in Singapore until now; and Non-party 1 is a permanent resident of Singapore. Considering that the place where the important decision related to the business has been made is a Singapore until now after its establishment, the disposition of this case is unlawful on the premise that the place of actual management is domestic.

(B) Even if the place of actual management is located in Korea, the Defendant did not specify when the Plaintiff was transferred to the Republic of Korea, and considering the fact that the business related to the CSS claims is terminated on or around September 2009, the Defendant imposed corporate tax on the taxable period, or on the period without income subject to taxation. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

(C) The instant disposition that was not based on the on-site investigation or based on the data on the provisional account settlement submitted in the tax investigation is unlawful without the estimation investigation (if it is impossible to conduct a on-site investigation).

(2) Defendant

(A) Since 2008, there was no fact that a separate business was conducted in Singapore. On September 29, 2009, in Seocho-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted), the Seocho-gu Seoul (hereinafter “○○ building”) moved to 7th floor of △△△ building in Gangnam-gu ( Address 2 omitted), Seoul (hereinafter “△△△△ building”), Nonparty 1, etc. established a house office in Korea, performed a CSS credit investment business in Korea, established a receipt account in the name of the Plaintiff according to the investment decision made in Korea, the Plaintiff’s decision-making person is Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6, who is an executive officer, and Nonparty 6 did not depart from Korea after 2006, Nonparty 1 resided in Korea, 206, 2009, and Nonparty 2, a non-registered director, resided in Korea, and Nonparty 1, etc., the Plaintiff’s major business affairs related to △△△ building, and the Plaintiff’s investment business affairs related to △△△ building, etc. can be considered in Korea.

(B) Considering the fact that the CSS claim investment business was commenced from January 2009, and Article 6(2) and (5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that “the business year of a corporation which has not reported the business year shall be from January 1 to December 31 of each year”, the instant disposition may specify the time and termination period of the taxable period, and may impose corporate tax on the taxable period.

(C) In light of the fact that the data on the settlement of accounts received from the Plaintiff is a data on the spot investigation, and that the Plaintiff did not raise an objection to the sales amount calculated by the data on the provisional settlement of accounts, the data on the provisional settlement of accounts is true, and the instant disposition based thereon is lawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Plaintiff’s objective business, etc.

(A) On March 2, 2000, the Plaintiff was established pursuant to Article 50(19) of the Singapore Company Act with the trade name, “Net2 R. Common Pte. Lt.,” (amended to “Net2 Rte. Lt.,” May 6, 2008). The Plaintiff operated an information and communications service business, such as providing Internet services, to a special-class hotel in Singapore mainly from the establishment to the business year of 2008. The sales amount from 2000 to the business year of 2008 are as follows:

US$ 200 283,861 2001 658,180 2002 1,181,038 2003 1,915,97 2004 3,107,1005 2,538,266 2006 930,66 207 2007,576 208,689

(B) The Plaintiff’s principal office address and the board of directors’ composition are as indicated in the attached Table 4> from 2000 to 2010.

Two persons, including Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 8, 10, 201 Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, etc. and 10, 2002 Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 8, etc. ( Address 4 omitted) 2003, 2005 ( Address 5 omitted) 2006, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 6, 2007 ( Address 6 omitted) 2008, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 1209 ( Address 7 omitted), Nonparty 2010, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 111, etc.

Non-party 2 is a non-registered executive officer, and has his domicile in Singapore since 2004, and has performed the investment business of CSS bonds in Korea in 2009. According to Article 184A(1) of the Singapore Company Act and Article 107 of the Articles of Incorporation, the written resolution of the board of directors, regardless of place, shall have the same effect as that of the resolution of the board of directors convened and convened.

(C) The current status of the Plaintiff’s shareholders and the details of the change of shareholders are as follows: and the attached Table 6>

From October 13, 2003 to December 2006 on December 2, 2007, 2007, to December 2007, 2009, Nonparty 93,057,497, 2,857,498 note 1,328,749 – Nonparty 17 – Nonparty 17 – - - - 1 - - - - - - 200,00 Note 20,000 note 20,000, 200,00 Nonparty 1 - 1-1,528,749 weeks, 2,857,498 shares in total, 3,057,498 shares

On January 19, 2007, the number of transferee ($200,000, 34, 137 June 2007, Nonparty 17 Nonparty 17, April 18, 2008, Nonparty 9 Nonparty 11,528, 749, 220, 936 February 17, 2009, Nonparty 9 Nonparty 11,328, 749, 147,645 on Nonparty 17, 2007.

(D) On January 28, 2009, the Plaintiff registered a foreign investor with the Governor of the Financial Supervisory Service.

(2) The location, etc. of the principal office of a link to a stock company

On September 22, 2009, a branch link (hereinafter “branch link”) was registered as the principal office from ○○ Building to △△△ Building. Meanwhile, Nonparty 6 is the actual representative of the branch link with Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 4 is registered as the representative director of the branch link.

(3) Work details, etc. of Nonparty 1

(A) Nonparty 1 is a permanent resident of Singapore. From May 200 to December 2007, Nonparty 1 served as the representative director of the “Maget Pted” (hereinafter “MPL”), a Singapore corporation, and from February 2008, as the Plaintiff’s representative director.

(B) Nonparty 1 owns the shares of domestic and foreign corporations, such as the Table 7>

Plaintiff Singapore Singapore Singapore 93.5% hotel business management services, Africa US, LLC 80% stocks and fund investment business, such as the information and communications business owned by Malaysia 83% investment holding companies 100% of the shares in non-Pacific General Airport (hereinafter referred to as the "PGC"), in the name of the land where the name of the land where the land was incorporated, including the main sentence, is located, and the ratio of the share of the land where the land was incorporated 190% of the investment holding company 83% of the investment holding company 100% of the investment trust business, and the commercial real estate rental business, the commercial real estate rental business, the commercial real estate rental business, the commercial real estate rental business, the business of Africa 1901 L.C. and the church hotel 1901 L., L.C. 252, LLC hotel 252, LLC hotel 125 Eball Anacifa, the commercial real estate rental business, the commercial real estate rental business, the commercial real estate rental business.

(4) Investment and collection of SS claims

On January 29, 2009, the Plaintiff opened an account at the Hong Kong Hong Kong Branch on February 10, 2009. On February 12, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred 2,200,000 US dollars to the GBS Hong Kong Branch. On February 23, 2009, the RBS Branch sent 9,000 US dollars on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Belgium Hong Kong Branch on February 23, 2009. On March 9, 2009, the Belgium Hong Kong Branch sent an order for purchase of foreign currency bonds issued by Korean listed companies at the Belgium Hong Kong Branch on behalf of the Plaintiff to the Belgium Hong Kong Branch on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Belgium Branch transferred 9,000 US dollars to the Plaintiff’s account at the Belgium Hong Kong Branch on March 23, 2009. Meanwhile, on February 23, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the price to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s domestic currency listed company at 00.

The loan repayment of 2,400,000 S. dollars 5,00,000 S. dollarss included in the main text are borrowed from 100,000,000 Plaintiff holding on January 30, 209 by PGC on January 28, 2009 from the loan repayment of 2,40,000,000 PG links to PGC ? on January 30, 2009 to the Plaintiff on January 30, 2009

(5) Statement by Nonparty 1, etc.

(A) Nonparty 1 stated in the tax investigation as follows.

The Plaintiff’s ○○○○○ Office’s ○○○○ 2, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 2’s ○○ 0 and Nonparty 2’s ○○ 2. Nonparty 1’s ○ 2’s ○ 2’s ○ 2’s 20-day 2’s 20-day 20-day 20-year 20. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s 2’s 8-day 2’s 20-day 20-day 1’s 20-day 20-day 206 2’s 20-day 207 20-year 207 20-year 207 20-day 3’s 20-day 20-day 208 3.

Nonparty 1 stated in this Court as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ○ 자신은 싱가포르에서 원고의 관리업무를, 소외 9는 미국에서 ‘Magilink USA LLC'의 관리업무를 각 수행하고, 두 회사의 사업상 중요한 의사결정이 필요하면 함께 논의하거나 동의를 얻어 결 정하였다. 자신과 소외 9는 필요하면 싱가포르, 미국 등지에서 만나거나 전화 등으로 원고의 사업활동 등에 관하여 논의하였고, 이사회결의는 서면으로 하였다. 이사회결의와 관련된 서류는 원고의 싱가포르 내 회계감사인의 사무실에 보관되어 있다. 세무조사에서 “소외 9가 원고의 운영에 관여하지 않았다”고 진술한 것은 동업자로서 소외 9는 ‘Magilink USA LLC'의 일상적인 업무를 담당하였다는 의미이지, 원고의 중요한 의사결정에서 배제되거나 이에 참여하지 않았다는 의미는 아니다. 자신도 ‘Magilink USA LLC'의 주식, 채권 등 대부분의 투자의사결정에 참여하였다. 2008. 12.경 미국 로스앤젤레스를 방문하여 소외 9로부터 CS채권 투자 관련 동의를 받고, CS채권 투자를 위한 자금 150만 미국달러를 ‘Magilink USA LLC'로부터 차입받기로 소외 6과 협의하였다. ○ 세무조사에서 “원고가 2008년 하반기 이후 실제로 투자하고 투자결과가 나온 것은 CS채권밖에 없다”고 한 것은 “CS채권 투자업무 이외에 다른 사업을 전혀 하지 않았다”는 의미가 아니라, 다른 여러 가지 새로운 투자를 검토하였으나, 결과적으로 실제 투자가 이루어진 것은 CS채권밖에 없다는 의미이다. ○ 매지링크가 2007년 초경 원고에게 대출을 하였는데, 외환관리규정상 대출할 수 있는 가장 바람직한 방법은 매지링크의 이사를 원고에 파견하는 것이었기 때문에, 소외 6을 원고의 이사로 선임하였다. 따라서 소외 6은 원고의 의사결정에 크게 관여하지 않았다. ○ 2008년 이후 국내 체류일수가 늘어났으나, 휴식 및 효도목적의 개인적인 방문이지, 원고의 업무를 보기 위한 방문이 아니었다. ○ 원고의 업무가 필요하면 관련 장부와 직원들이 있는 싱가포르에 방문하여 대부분 수행하였고, 국내에서 원고의 업무를 본 사실이 거의 없다. ○ 원고의 이사회를 국내에서 개최한 적이 없다. ○ CS채권 중에는 국내 거주자가 인수할 수 없는 채권이 다수 포함되어 있었다. CS는 CS채권을 일괄처리하기 위하여 국내 비거주자가 인수할 것을 조건으로 하였기 때문에 싱가포르 법인인 원고가 CS채권을 전부 인수하였다. ○ 원고는 전세계적으로 불어닥친 금융위기의 여파로 CS가 보유하고 있던 금융자산이 급매물로 나온 것을 계기로 CS채권에 1회성 투자를 하였다. 싱가포르 법인을 청산하거나 국내에서 계속적인 사업을 영위할 의도는 전혀 없었다. ○ 원고는 2009년부터 아프리카 케냐에서 농작물 경작사업을 추진하였고, 2010. 7.경부터 기존의 사업경험을 활용하여 미국 내 호텔 관리 및 자문, 정보통신 관련 경영지원 서비스업을 진행하고 있다. ○ 원고는 설립 이후 지금까지 싱가포르 회계법인의 회계감사를 받고, 싱가포르 과세관청에 법인세, 부가가치세 등을 신고·납부하였다. ○ 원고는 설립 이후 지금까지 싱가포르 내에 사무실을 두고서 업무용 컴퓨터 및 서버 등의 전산설비를 설치하고, 원고의 업무 관련 서류들도 보관하고 있다. ○ 2008. 8.경 원고의 종전 주소가 싱가포르의 과학단지에 있었는데 당시 IT업을 중단하였기 때문에 원고의 주소를 (주소 6 생략)'로 옮겼다. 2010. 8.경 ‘(주소 7 생략)'로 원고의 주소를 옮긴 것은 세무조사와 전혀 상관이 없고, 임대기간이 끝났기 때문에 그 당시 이미 관련 세금도 모두 납부한 상태였다. ○ 원고는 2009년도에 자신, 소외 2, 소외 12 등에게 급여를 지급하고, 원고가 부담해야 하는 국민연금도 납부하였다. ○ 한국과 관련된 원고의 업무는 여유자금 운용방법으로 2006년 1회성으로 국내회사에서 발행한 해외전환사채를 홍콩에서 인수한 사실이 있을 뿐, 국내에 사무실을 유치하거나 직원을 고용하는 등 국내에서 사업장을 운영한 적이 없다. ○ 원고의 사무실은 싱가포르에 있었고, 자신이나 소외 6이 △△빌딩에 들를 경우 메일을 체크하는 정도였다. ○ 매지링크는 2007. 2.경 CS채권 인수 이후인 2009. 9.경 ○○빌딩에서 △△빌딩으로 사무실을 이전하였다. ○ 원고는 매지링크의 이전 사무실인 ○○빌딩을 사무실로 사용한 적이 없다. ○ 소외 2는 △△빌딩에 임시로 책상 하나를 두고 때때로 들렀을 뿐 독립된 사무공간을 가지고 있지 않았다. ○ △△빌딩에는 자신의 은행거래 관련 자료 일부와 소외 2의 우편물이 보관되어 있었다. 원고 회사 관련 서류로는 일부 우편물과 수표책이 있었다. ○ CS채권은 모두 상장회사에서 발행된 채권이었기 때문에, 1-2개 정도는 문제가 있었다. 하지만 어차피 회수가 예상되는 채권이었고, 크게 회수업무라고 할 것이 없었다. ○ 소외 2는 CS채권 회수업무를 수행한 투자자문회사인 주식회사 와이앤와이리서치의 소외 3로부터 결과보고를 받거나, 진행상황을 확인하는 정도의 업무를 하였다. ○ 원고는 싱가포르 거주자로서 2007년부터 2008년까지 CS채권에서 발생한 이자소득 등에 관하여 원천법인세를 징수당하였다. 그러나 피고는 이 사건 처분을 하면서 원고에게 원천법인세를 환급하지 않았다. ○ 2008년 및 2009년 동안 총 30회 정도 한국을 방문하였으나, 체류기간은 1개월을 초과한 경우는 3-4회에 불과하다. 2010년 이후 국내 체류일수가 증가한 것은 세무조사, 검찰조사, 형사소송, 행정소송 때문이다. ○ 피고는 매지링크가 자신에게 제공한 일부혜택을 전부 업무무관비용으로 손금불산입하였다. ○ 소외 12가 원고의 투자검토를 위하여 관련된 20건의 투자사례를 분석한 자료가 있고, 관련 업무를 위해서 자신 및 투자상대방과 주고받은 이메일이 상당수 있다. 투자사례 분석 20건에 대해서 여러 가지 검토를 하였지만 이 사건 세무조사 이후 자금난에 봉착하는 등으로 실행하지 못하였다. ○ 자신과 소외 2가 소외 12와 상의하여 소외 12의 급여를 결정하였다. ○ 2010 사업연도에 Pant라는 성을 가진 여직원이 두 달 정도 근무하였다. 2009 사업연도에는 자신, 소외 2, 소외 12만 근무하였다. ○ 자신의 부탁을 받고 소외 4가 금융위원회 및 한국거래소에 제출한 ‘주식등의 대량보유상황보고서’의 결재란 중 ‘사장란’에 서명하였다. ○ 자신이 소외 4에게 전체적인 CS채권 거래에 관하여 일을 봐달라고 부탁하였다. ○ 세무조사에서 “원고 명의로 취득한 CS채권 매입과 회수를 위하여 사업의 실질적 관리장소를 매지링크의 서울사무소 내에 두고 CS채권에 투자하여 회수한 사실이 있다”고 한 진술은 실질적 관리장소의 법적·세무조사의 의미를 모르는 상태에서 이루어진 것이다. 국내체류시 가끔이라도 사무실에 들러서 이메일이라도 본다면 관리를 하는 것이라는 소박한 생각에 그와 같이 진술하였다. 조사공무원은 실질적 관리장소라는 용어의 의미에 관하여 아무런 설명을 하지 않았다. 내국법인으로 과세할 것을 전혀 예상하지 못하였다. ○ 매지링크 서울사무실에서 CS채권에 투자하거나, 국내에서 채권취득자금을 보내거나 상환받을 경우 국내사업장 있는 외국법인에 해당할 수 있다는 점에 관하여 우려한 것은 사실이다. 그러나 그 지적을 자신이 한 것은 아니다. 원고는 주사무소가 싱가포르에 있고, 이 사건 거래 자체가 해외거래이며, 내국에서 실질적 관리를 하지 않았기 때문에 그러한 우려가 불식되었다. ○ 소외 6은 CS채권 투자사업에 관하여 보고만 받았고, 소외 2나 소외 4에게 지시를 하지 않았다. ○ 소외 3이 소외 4 혹은 소외 6에게 CS채권 투자를 권유하였고, 자신에게 권유하지 않았다. 소외 2와 10년 정도 알고 지낸 사이였거나, 자신이 없었기 때문에 소외 4나 소외 6에게 이야기한 것이다. ○ 세무조사 당시 △△빌딩에서 영치된 서류 중 CS채권 관련 서류나, 미국부동산 투자 관련 서류가 포함되어 있었는지 기억나지 않는다. ○ 소외 2는 매지링크의 업무를 담당하지 않고, 원고와 미국에 자신이 주주로 되어 있는 회사들의 일을 계속 담당하였다. 그 중 원고의 업무를 제일 많이 처리하고 있다. ○ CS채권은 전부 코스닥상장회사에서 발행된 것이기 때문에, 회수될 확률이 굉장히 높아 국내에서 별도로 관리할 일이 없었다. ○ CS채권 관리를 위해, 언제까지 갚을 수 있는지 공문을 보내거나, 일부 갚지 않는 경우 법무사들에게 증권을 설정하게 하였다. 채권발행회사들이 상환기간을 연장하거나 상환조건 변경을 요구하면 그것에 대해서 검토하는 일을 하였는데, 실질적으로 거의 90% 이상은 9개월 정도 내에 모두 회수되었다. ○ 주식회사 와이앤와이리서치가 CS채권 투자와 관련한 국내 업무를 전담하였다. ○ 소외 12는 CS채권 투자사업과 관련하여 싱가포르에서 은행계좌문제나 서류준비 등을 하였을 것으로 생각된다. ○ CS채권 투자는 자신이 결정하였지만, 추심업무는 소외 3가, 관련된 서류작성이나 보고업무는 소외 2가 담당하였다. 채권 매입 후에는 구체적으로 할 일이 없었다. X-Road 채권회수에 문제가 있어 이에 관여한 적은 있지만, 나머지 채권 회수에 기여하지 않았고, 기안된 서류에 관하여 검토하거나 코멘트를 한 정도였다. ○ 2009. 1. 17. 소외 4, 소외 2, 소외 6에게 보낸 “자신과 소외 6은 원고가 이 거래를 하고, 매지링크를 배제하는 것에 동의합니다”는 메일은 매지링크의 경영책임을 소외 6이 맡고 있었기 때문에, CS채권 투자사업과 관련한 것은 원고가 하기로 하였다는 의미이다. ○ 2007 사업연도 재무제표에 자신과 소외 6만 서명하고, 소외 9가 서명하지 않았으나, 이사 3명중 2명만 서명을 하면 되었기 때문이다.

(B) Nonparty 6 stated in the tax investigation as follows.

The main purpose of this paper is to provide Nonparty 1’s business to Nonparty 1’s hotel, etc. Nonparty 2’s ○○○○○ Office’s 204. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s 2’s ○○○○○ Office’s 204 business. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were to purchase the Plaintiff’s 2’s 200-day office’s 200-year 200-year 200-day 1 and 4’s 200-day 20-day 208 20-day 208 20-day 1 and 30-day 20-day 208. 207 20-day 1 and 30-day 20-day 20-day 208.

Nonparty 6 stated in this Court as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ○ 소외 3이 CS채권 투자와 관련하여 자신에게 연락한 것 때문에 간혹 CS채권 업무 현황에 관한 메일 수신인에 포함되어 있었을 뿐, CS채권 업무에 전혀 관여하지 않았다. ○ 세무조사에서 “소외 9가 원고의 운영에 관여하지 않았다”고 진술한 것은 동업자로서 소외 9은 ‘Magilink USA LLC'의 일상적인 업무를 담당하였다는 의미이지, 원고의 중요한 의사결정에서 배제되거나 이에 참여하지 않았다는 의미는 아니다. ○ 세무조사에서 “2008년 원고가 기존사업을 사실상 정리하였다”고 진술한 것은 원고가 기존 호텔 인터넷 제공사업을 정리하고 새로운 사업을 모색하고 시작한다는 의미이다. ○ 세무조사에서 “원고의 실질적 관리장소가 △△빌딩에 있었다”고 진술한 것은 실질적 관리장소라는 국제조세 용어의 법적인 의미를 전혀 모른 채 가끔이라도 사무실에 들러서 이메일이라도 본다면 관리를 한 것이라는 소박한 생각에서 그렇게 한 것이다. 조사공무원은 실질적 관리장소는 용어의 의미에 관하여 아무런 설명도 하지 않았다. 또한 CS채권 중 90%가 2009. 5. 내지 6.경 회수되었고, 매지링크는 2009. 9. ○○빌딩에서 △△빌딩으로 이전하였기 때문에, CS채권 회수업 무는 ○○빌딩에서 이루어졌는데, ○○빌딩을 착오로 △△빌딩으로 진술하였다. 매지링크와 덕양사업이 ○○빌딩 사무실을 공유하였고, 자신만 사무실을 가지고 있었고, 나머지 사무실과 책상은 출근하는 직원들이 사용하였고, 소외 1이나 소외 2도 외국에서 들어왔을 때, 자기 사무실과 책상이 없었다. ○ 원고는 CS채권 관련 금융감독원 전자공시 업무를 수행할 직원이 없어서 매지링크의 직원인 소외 18 차장이 이를 대행하여 주었다. 세무조사에서 영치된 자료는 소외 18 차장이 원고의 전자공시 관련하여 금융감독원에 제출한 증빙서류를 사본으로 작성하고, 1권으로 편철하여 보관하고 있었던 것이다. CS채권 관련서류는 공시 관련서류 외에는 없었다. ○ 원고의 2007 사업연도 재무제표에 이사로 서명한 것은 이사로 등재되어 있었기 때문이다. ○ 소외 2가 2009. 4. 23. CS채권 투자사업의 회수실적 보고를 하면서 자신을 수신인으로 한 것은, 자신이 소외 2에게 요즘 CS채권 투자사업이 어떻게 되고 있느냐고 물어 보았기 때문이다. ○ 외국에서 벌어지는 모든 일은 소외 1이, 한국에서 벌어지는 모든 일은 자신이 책임지기로 업무를 분할하였다. 소외 4가 매지링크의 대표이사로 되어 있기는 하지만, 매지링크에 관련된 의사결정은 자신이 하였다. 외국에서 벌어지는 일에 대해 도와 줄 일이 있으면, 소외 4를 비롯하여 매지링크 팀을 원고에게 붙여 주었다. ○ CS채권 관련하여 국내에서 매입하기 위하여 자신이 관여하고 변호사 의견도 받았지만 1월 중 외화표시채권이 있어서 국내에서 매입하지 못한다고 하여 매지링크는 떨어져 나가고, 해외에 있던 소외 1과 소외 2가 관여하였다. 소외 3 및 소외 1과 개인적인 친분이 있어서 중간에 어떻게 되고 있고, 문제가 무엇인지를 물어본 적이 있으며, 소외 2에게 국내에서 혹시 법률적으로 풀어야 할 일이 있으면 도와주겠으니 현황을 한번 보고해 보라고 하여 받은 이메일이 있습니다. 이메일을 보더라도 실제로 자신이 어떤 지시를 내린 것은 하나도 없고, 참고사항으로 보내달라고 하였고, 도와 줄 일이 있으면 도와 주겠다고 하였다. ○ 소외 4와 소외 18은 원고의 CS채권 관련 공시업무를 담당였다. ○ 소외 1은 2009년 국내에 크게 벌어진 일이 없었기 때문에 ○○빌딩이나 △△빌딩에 한 달에 몇번 정도 들렀고, 주로 전화로 업무보고를 받았다. ○ 소외 3이 2009. 1. 29. 자신, 소외 4, 소외 2에게 발송한 “대한민국에 실질적 관리장소가 있는 법인이므로”라고 기재된 메일을 보지 못하였다. 소외 1이 2009. 2. 3. 자신, 소외 4, 소외 2에게 “국내사업장이 없는 외국법인이라고 관련기관에서 주장할 것이 틀림없음”이라고 기재된 메일을 발송하였지만, 이에 관하여 의사결정을 한 적이 없다. ○ 소외 2는 2009 사업연도에 이가 굉장히 아팠기 많이 아팠기 때문에, ○○빌딩에서 와서 일을 했던 적은 거의 없었다. ○ 세무조사 당시 자신과 소외 1은 별도의 방에 있었고, 소외 4와 소외 2는 별도의 책상이 있었다.

(C) Nonparty 2 stated in the tax investigation as follows.

The Plaintiff included in the main text was Nonparty 1 Company for 208, and the investment company was mainly engaged in the business after the second half of 2008. However, it was actually invested after the second half of 208, and there was no result of investment. From June 2008 to July 2008, the Plaintiff was in charge of the review of the Plaintiff’s management and investment proposal. around 008, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s office to Nonparty 1’s office on the first half of 200: (a) Nonparty 1’s business-related 2’s business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business-related business.

Nonparty 2 stated in this Court as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 ○ 세무조사에서 “원고가 2008년 하반기 이후 실제로 투자하고 투자결과가 나온 것은 CS채권밖에 없다”고 한 것은 CS채권 투자업무 이외에 다른 사업을 전혀 하지 않았다는 의미가 아니라, 다른 여러 가지 새로운 투자를 검토하였으나, 결과적으로 실제 투자가 이루어진 것은 CS채권밖에 없다는 의미이다. ○ 원고는 CS채권 투자 뿐만 아니라, 2009년부터 아프리카 케냐에서 농작물 경작사업을 추진하다가 철수하였고, 2010. 7.경부터는 기존의 사업경험을 활용하여 미국 내 호텔관리 및 자문, 정보통신 관련 경영지원 서비스사업을 진행하고 있다. ○ 소외 3로부터 CS채권 회수현황을 보고 받으면, 이를 정리하여 소외 1에게 이메일로 보고하고, 간혹 소외 6에게도 보고하는 정도의 업무만을 수행하였다. 채권 회수업무는 채권에 정해진 조건대로 하는 것이기 때문에 소외 3이 회수업무를 하고, 그 결과를 자신에게 알려주었다. 매지링크가 △△빌딩으로 이전한 것은 2009. 9.경인데, 당시에는 사실상 채권 관련업무가 거의 마무리된 상태였기 때문에 특별히 보고할 것이 많지 않았다. 세무조사에서 “CS채권 인수 관련 업무는 자신과 소외 3이 수행하여 소외 1과 소외 6에게 보고하였다”는 진술도 이러한 의미이다. ○○빌딩이나 △△빌딩에서 소외 1과 CS채권 회수업무와 관련하여 협의한 적은 없다. ○ 소외 6은 CS채권 업무에 관여하지 않았다. CS채권 관련하여 소외 6로부터 직접 지시를 받은 적은 없다. 소외 6을 메일의 참조인란에 넣은 이유는 소외 3을 소개해 주었기 때문에 진행경과를 궁금해 할 것이라고 생각했기 때문이다. ○ 2009년 국내 체류목적은 치주염이 심해서 잇몸치료를 받기 위한 것이었다. ○ 조사공무원이 세무조사에서 “원고의 실질적 관리장소가 △△빌딩에 있었느냐”고 묻자, 실질적 관리장소의 의미를 전혀 모르는 상태에서 “자신과 소외 1은 원고 소속으로 매지링크의 사무실 공간일부를 사용하였다”고 진술하였다. ○ ○○빌딩에 간혹 들르는 정도였고, 별도의 자리가 있거나 업무를 본 적은 없다. △△빌딩에서는 빈 책상 하나를 임시로 사용하여 업무를 본 적이 있다. ○ 싱가포르 현지조사 당시 입회하였다. 컴퓨터 서버에서 발송되거나 서버로 수취된 메일은 각 송수신자의 개인 컴퓨터에 보관되고, 서버에서는 이를 따로 보관하지 않기 때문에 “컴퓨터 서버에서 원고의 업무 관련 메일을 확인할 수 없다”고 진술하였다. 조사공무원들이 열람한 캐비닛 보관 파일들 중에 원고의 매출·매입 관련자료, 각종 계약서, 회계 관련자료, 이사회 의사록 등이 포함되어 있었다. 그 중 일부 자료는 원고의 감사를 위하여 싱가포르 감사인의 사무실에 보관되어 있음을 조사공무원들에게 설명하였다. 싱가포르 사무실에 CS채권 매매 관련서류, 증권계좌, 은행계좌 관련 서류들이 보관되어 있었다. ○ 외부감사인으로부터 “원고의 주소지를 사무실과 주거 겸용으로 사용해도 무방하다”는 확인을 받았다. ○ 2010년 CS채권 거래에 따른 과세문제를 회계법인인 KPMG Singapore에 자문하여 보기로 하고 2009 사업연도 세무신고를 보류하였다가, 2012. 4. 3. 위 회계법인의 도움을 받아 2009 사업연도분 세무신고를 하였다. 2009년도 재무제표가 완성되지 않은 사유를 설명하였음에도, 조사공무원은 원고의 재무제표가 매지링크에 대한 과세참고자료로 필요하다면서 계속 원고의 재무제표 제출을 요구하였다. 이에 급하게 원고에 대한 과세참고자료로 알고 급하게 2009년도 재무제표를 작성한 다음 가결산자료임을 명기하여 과세관청에 제출하였다. ○ 소외 3로부터 상장회사의 전환사채 등 인수시 금융감독원 전자공시가 필요하다는 이야기를 듣고 당시 공시경험이 있던 매지링크 직원에게 원고의 공시업무를 부탁하였다. ○ 수인인이 소외 6로 된 메일은 소외 6이 어떻게 되어가느냐고 물어서 발송된 것이고, 통상적인 업무보고는 항상 소외 1에게 하였다. ○ CS채권 관련 공시업무는 자신의 이름으로 하였으나, 그 업무 자체는 다른 사람에게 부탁하였다. ○ 소외 1의 지시로 소외 1에게 CS채권 회수 관련 각종 서류 검토를 의뢰하였다. ○ 소외 1로부터 2009. 4. 27. 메일로 “모든 서류들을 (변호사가 초안한 것이라도) 나한테 결재 받은 다음에 상대방에게 (초안이라도) 보내도록 필히 준수할 것. 그리고 이러한 건들은 최소 1주 일 이상의 시간을 가지고 진행할 것”이라는 지시를 받았으나, 실제로 이렇게 실행되지 않았다. ○ 2009. 4. 23. 수신인이 소외 6로 된 메일에 “추가변동사항이 생기면 다시 보고드리겠습니다”는 부분은 이메일의 결구이다. ○ △△빌딩 사무실에 갔을 때 빈자리가 있으면 그냥 앉았다. ○ ○○빌딩에서 CS채권 관련 매매내용을 관련회사에 통보하고, 우편물을 수취하기에 마땅한 곳이 없었기 때문에 ○○빌딩에서 수취하였다. ○ 조사공무원이 현지조사에서 확인한 캐비닛 자료는 대부분 2008. 7.경 이전 원고가 기존 사업을 수행하던 자료였고, 2008년 이후 2009년 자료도 있었다. 싱가포르 사무실에 회계자료(갑 제71호증 내지 제133호증의 2) 중 원본이 필요한 것은 원본으로, 원본이 필요하지 않은 것은 사본으로 보관되어 있었다. 서류의 분량이나 정리되지 않았던 서류를 감안하면 조사공무원들이 모든 서류를 다 볼 수는 없었을 것으로 생각된다. 조사공무원들이 원고가 이 법원에서 제출한 서류들을 확하였는지는 알 수 없으나, 그 서류들은 조사 당시 보관되어 있었다. ○ 소외 12는 'Pacific Star에 입사할 때부터 원고에서도 근무해도 된다는 동의를 받았다. 소외 12에 대한 급여는 자신이 조사하고, 소외 1이 결정하였다.

(D) Nonparty 3 stated in the tax investigation as follows.

On December 3, 2004, which is included in the main text, ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Building located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongdamdong, established a L&C book and established a corporate management consulting service and consulting service in the field of corporate finance. The location of the ○○ business place is 7th floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 2 omitted). The location of the △△△○ Building located in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○ Building. Nonparty 19 is in place of the business place in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○○ Building. Nonparty 19 is aware that the MP has been financed with the bonds with warrants issued overseas and convertible bonds issued overseas. Prior to the MPL’s investment in the MPL, the MPL was known. The Plaintiff’s CSS credit collection and recovery service was conducted from around the beginning of 2009 to the end of the end of the end of the 2009, and the collection and service of the △△○ building was not recovered.

Nonparty 3 stated in this Court as follows:

In this context, ○○○○○ Hong Kong Branch’s intent to sell bonds within the main text, and introduced SS claims to Nonparty 1. Around December 2008, 2009, ○○ Hong Kong Branch agreed on the price presented by Nonparty 1, and the Plaintiff registered as an investor to the Financial Supervisory Service as a non-resident. around April 2009, ○○ building and around January 2010, 201 were located in ○○○ Building and around 00. There was no office or work at the time of accepting ○○○○ Building. Nonparty 1 did not reach an agreement with Nonparty 2 on the acquisition of SS claims. Nonparty 2 was reported by telephone, and Nonparty 2 received instructions from Nonparty 2, and the Plaintiff was notified at any time and received instructions from Nonparty 2, 200,000,000 from ○○○○○○ Branch to perform the duty of collecting claims (such as notice of debt collection, delivery of documents, etc.).

(E) Nonparty 14 made a statement in this court as follows.

From June 6, 2010 to November, 11 of the same month, ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s name included in the main text. Nonparty 1 confirmed all of the computerized server and softs. Nonparty 12 did not have any data related to the CSS credit investment business other than the personal data of Nonparty 12 and the business data conducted by the Plaintiff. At the ○○○○○ local office, there were both documents and passbooks related to CSS credit in the ○○○ building, and there was e-mail in the computers used by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 6. Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 1 did not have any documents related to the business at the time of Nonparty 1’s entry into the ○○ Singapore, and did not have any material necessary for Nonparty 1’s business activities, audit, corporate management, business development, tax audit, and accounting audit. Nonparty 2 did not have any data on the Plaintiff’s personal data at the ○○○○ office, and did not have any such data.

(6) The mail of Nonparty 4, etc.

(A) On January 15, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

In the case of Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 1: The owner of an overseas-issued convertible bond shall enter into a contract with the owner of the overseas-issued convertible bond, and if the purchase price is settled through the Euro PP, etc., the main part of the procedure for transferring securities, such as a transfer contract, payment, and delivery of securities, is considered to have been made overseas. Therefore, the status of convertible bonds is excluded from the subject of corporate tax pursuant to Article 21(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act.

(B) On January 16, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

. Nonparty 2, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 1: F.W [FW] Data. The original plan with respect to CSSage is 1.19.0 and 2. The remaining securities are planned to open and purchase foreign accounts, but they appear to be 1.5% or more of the shares of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s name in the public notice of 0.0% or more, it is anticipated that the CSS will be difficult for the Plaintiff to repay the 0-U.S. loan funds to the Plaintiff. It is expected that the 0-U.S. loan funds will be returned to 0-U.S. 10 if the 0-U.S. loan links were sold to the Plaintiff within the short period of 0-U.C. 1. It would be possible for the Plaintiff to claim that the 30-U.S. loan funds will be returned to the Plaintiff as soon as possible, and that the 30-U.S. loan funds will be returned to the Plaintiff.

(C) On January 17, 2009, Nonparty 1 sent the following mail.

Non-party 4: Non-party 2 and Non-party 6’s title: RE [FW] RE. 1.b. and Non-party 6 agree that this transaction is made by the Plaintiff, and that chip links are excluded. In this regard, it is reasonable for chip link to request the Plaintiff to postpone the repayment of Neowa’s claim as soon as possible, and that it is appropriate for chip link to repay the loan first to the Plaintiff. 3. In order to raise the necessary funds to the Plaintiff, the chip link will be repaid part of the loan to PGC. The loan will then be lent to the Plaintiff. The loan will be extended to approximately approximately USD 1,500,000.

(D) On January 20, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-Party 6 and Non-Party 1: Non-Party 2: The Ministry of Strategy and Finance may send Nonparty 1’s e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail e-mail - the Plaintiff’s e-mail e-mail e-mail tweet.

Nonparty 2 sent the following emails on the same day.

See Nonparty 9: Nonparty 1’s bank and securities company’s account is opened. Nonparty 1 is expected to send documents relating thereto to the bank and securities company’s account. Of these documents, the documents are signed only by the resolution of the board of directors. In addition, when documents are prepared, the copy of the U.S. passport is made and the signature of the party is made in the open space of the copy. If documents are prepared, it is sent to the following address as soon as possible: ( Address 6 omitted).

(E) On January 29, 2009, Nonparty 3 sent the following emails.

In the case of Nonparty 4, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 6: [FW] FW: Foreign CB of Singapore, i.e., a corporation with its main office in the Republic of Korea, not a corporation with its main office in the Republic of Korea, i.e., a domestic corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, i., its main office in the Republic of Korea, or a corporation with its main office and actual business management place. Thus, even if securities are acquired through a domestic securities company account in the foreign investment registration of the Securities Business Regulation, it does not go against the Regulations on Prohibition of Resident Acquisition within one year under Article 12(1)6 of the Regulations on Prohibition of Issuance and Publication of Securities, and (2) the corporate tax is exempted pursuant to Article 21 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, so there is no obligation to withhold taxes.

(F) On January 31, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6’s title contained in the main sentence: FW [FW] Re: FW: The following related to Singapore’s foreign CB and BW acquisition is sent to the attorney-at-law. It is known whether any further details should be added and the mail will be sent. The attorney-at-law and the most simple method is the best way for the Plaintiff to open and trade securities accounts in a foreign country, but the Plaintiff already completed the opening of the securities account at the treatment securities Seoul branch at the end of the letter book, with a view to opening the securities account at the end of the letter book, and having already completed the opening of the account. It was found that the securities account opened in Korea differently from the originally planned while trying to open the account and re-examine the entire transaction, and that there is no tax exemption benefit for Korea to enjoy the benefits of Korea through the account opened in Korea? Whether the content of this paper is consistent with 42) and whether the non-resident is entitled to tax exemption under the Restriction of Special Taxation Act?

(G) On February 3, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

See Non-party 1: Non-party 2 and Non-party 3: FW: the legal opinions of attorneys-at-law related to the acquisition of Singapore corporations. In summary, capital gains may be exempt from taxation by fulfilling the provisions of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, but in our case, it is not subject to withholding tax because it does not constitute capital gains because it is a repayment other than transfer. Therefore, even if using a domestic securities account, it is not subject to withholding tax. However, because it is stipulated that a claim for which one year has not passed after its issuance is not a domestic transaction, it will not be traded in the Republic of Korea, and therefore, it entered into the opening of an account in Taiwan KG I securities again located in Hong Kong in accordance with the land register of the CS counterpart that needs to be traded in Korea.

Nonparty 1 sent the following mail on the same day.

Non-party 4: Non-party 2 and Non-party 6’s title: Re-party 1 related to Singapore’s foreign CB and BW acquisition: If the issue is later raised, the Plaintiff’s assertion is a foreign corporation with a domestic place of business. Compared with it. 2. First of all, it is favorable for the Plaintiff to trade from the overseas securities account at 10%, and is incorporated into a non-scheduled overseas transaction.

(h) On February 11, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails:

Nonparty 1: FW: An account in USTRTRS was put in place, and accompanied by the Plaintiff’s account number.

(i) On February 13, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

The voting receiver contained in the main text: FW: FW: HK was confirmed to have been deposited. The treatment securities were not verified because the person in charge did not return to the continuing place. The deposit will be again known to confirm.

(j) On February 20, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following mail.

In the case of Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 1: Re: Nonparty 4’s title: The Dvalue D valueD for the Plaintiff and the related parties of the Plaintiff and the WTO of the CSR. The Azond in the won currency B, the issue date of which has become one year, was decided to be traded on March 2, 198. The remaining foreign currency and won currency CB/BW are scheduled to be traded through RBS and the treatment securities respectively on the TBS (2/23) on the TBS and the day after the end of each month.

(k) On February 24, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails:

Re: Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 1: Non-Party 4’s title: Re: the current status of the progress of the Credit Transfer Action. - The foreign portion via RBS was sent to the Euro Plus Pursuant to the terms (2/23) transaction order and notified to the Eurdo Plus Pursuant to the terms. Set Management DNA is 3.9. - Alternative Venture (BW) and NAB (CB) among the domestic bonds through the treatment securities are completed and delivered the completion of the credit transaction and are in custody in the Company’s Treasury. - The domestic portion of the Credit is scheduled to be traded on March 2, 190 after the date of issuance. - The domestic portion of the Credit is changed from the original computerized transaction to the Manru’s transaction, and the date of concluding the contract and the date of receiving the Credit (2/25/25)/the date of receiving the Credit.

(l) On March 19, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

See Non-party 1: Non-party 2 and Non-party 6’s title: RE: the Korea New DNP issue bonds (2,100,000 US dollars) among the bonds purchased from May Conbber CS were separated only from preemptive rights and decided to sell them to USD 130,000 only for the bonds. This transaction is conducted through Euro subject, and RBS is in the state of being in the state of being in which RBS wants to leave Voeoeoeog in direct conversations with Non-party 1, and the RBS wants to leave VOeoeog. The separated Warants will later be sold to US$ 120,00, and the estimated amount of Han New DNP recovery will be sold to US$ 250,000.

(m) On March 21, 2009, Nonparty 4 sent the following emails.

Non-party 1 and Non-party 6: See the main sentence: Non-party 2's subscription to new convertible bonds with X-ray duty and redemption of existing convertible bonds: Guide x-ray in the retirement crisis, and take over EX-ray's compulsory convertible bonds in order to protect the economic interest of the claims held by the plaintiff, inducing the redemption of convertible bonds currently held by the plaintiff ($ 3,300,000) with the funds, and selling new obligatory convertible bonds with the new subscription to collect the proceeds of the investment. The detailed contents are referred to as the "application and sale of the obligatory convertible bonds with X-ray duty" file of attached, and the approval of this transaction (including repayment of the bonds held by the plaintiff with the loan to the new venture, and including redemption of the bonds held by the plaintiff). Non-party 1 shall be given an offer to Non-party 2, 300 U.S. convertible bonds with the obligation to prepare for sale of the bonds in order to meet the financial interest of the claims held by the plaintiff.

(n) On April 2, 2009, Nonparty 1 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6: Non-party 4 and Non-party 2: Dish and B, acquired from CS, sent the following documents to B before sending them to the other party in connection with the Venture and BW. 1. Agreement on January 2, 200, 4. Legal documents related to the Agreement, 5. New Negotiations or Agreements, 5. Security of the other party, including a new or amended other party, 6.

(o) On April 23, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6: Non-party 1 and Non-party 4: Ud Rate CB/B W Recovery status as of the gold day related to CB/W Investment as follows: - Total cash input amount: USD 9 million ($ 6.8 million in Hong Kong, US$ 2.2 million in Korea) - Cash Balance: USD 4.8 million in U.S. - 2.00 U.S. dollars - Cash Recovery at 2.5 billion U.S. dollars in each branch link: 2.5 million U.S. dollars in accordance with 2.3 million U.S. dollars. dollars. - The additional collection target amount is 15.1 million U.S. dollars, and profits at present are 8.4 million U.S. dollars - 5.4 million U.S. dollars in case of exchanging CB/BW with stocks under the current condition of using CB/W, the actual valuation amount will be 7.6 million U.S. dollars in advance and its main date of redemption after the commencement of sale.

(p) On April 24, 2009, Nonparty 1 sent the following emails.

Non-party 4: Non-party 2 and Non-party 6’s title: Re: whether carried out in relation to the Meish and BW on April 2, 2009, or in the course of implementation, or whether in relation to the Meish and BW on April 2, 2009, send the following documents related to the company: 1. Ever Reces (Convertible Business and Obligations) 2. X-Rad 3. Puton to Hyunda 4. Metal 4. Lyunda M/Coron 4. Lyptal 4. Lyptal 5. Heninh DNP 6. Initus

(q) On April 24, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following mail.

See Non-Party 1: Non-Party 4 and Non-Party 6: Red and B.1. Eresh : Debt Settlement Agreement - Copy of compulsory convertible bonds and terms and conditions (the 1.160,000,000 won of the face value of the received bonds) 2. X-Rod - Non-Party 3,300,000 US bonds issued by X-Rod and the Plaintiff’s Agreement (the re-purchase of bonds issued by X-Rod): 3.0,000 US bonds and 3.0,000,000 US bonds issued by RBS) for non-performance of the obligation to acquire the bonds, and will have been notified of the non-performance of the obligation to acquire the bonds through an employment policy of RBS - 4,000,000 US bonds.

(r) On April 27, 2009, Nonparty 1 sent the following emails.

Non-party 2: Non-party 4 and Non-party 6’s title: Dish and BW-Dou, and Non-party 4 and Non-party 2 were under the DDAFT documents. These documents are relatively well-known. 2. On February 1, 200, the documents related to X-ORD and Han DunNP are completely opened and are anticipated to be difficult to exercise their rights in the event of a problem. 3. The same is that the conversion of compulsory convertible bonds is not a favorable condition for each bond, which is different from the bonds in Korea. Any other documents should be complied with to be sent to the other party (the draft, even if the attorney proposed) after the settlement of all the documents. Such a case must take place for at least one week.

(s) On May 18, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

See Non-party 6: Non-party 1 and Non-party 4: UP Rate 18) on the collection status of CB/BW : - Total cash input amount: USD 9 million (RBS 6.8 million US dollars 2.2 million US dollars) - Cash Balance on April 22: US$ 5.4 million - Cash Receipt at 1.3 million US dollars (TB 6.6 billion US dollars and EX 1.6 billion US dollars - Cash Collection at 4.1 million US dollars - In the event that 4.1 million US dollars (LB 1.45% of cash collection rate) elapsed, the major business activities are as follows: DP 1.3 million US dollars in the event of new sale and exchange of new stocks (1.3 million US dollars - 1.4 million US dollars in the event of new sale and exchange of new stocks (2.4 million US dollars in the event of new sale of new stocks) - 3.4 million US dollars in the event of deposit.

(B) Nonparty 2 sent the following mail on May 22, 200:

Non-party 6: Non-party 1 and Non-party 4: Re: The progress of the case in progress at the UD rate of CB/B collection (no change is made to the additional deposit and cash balance as of this day) as follows: Dong member's right: 2. Hyundai Metal: Promotion of sale after the adjustment of exchange rate at CB event exchange rate - Promotion of sale at CB event exchange rate - receipt of a notarized bill for 10% redemption and balance at the end of May - If 6/17 is unredeemed until June 12, 196, the bill of exchange and seizure proceeding 3. NNGB B: consultation Ma&A negotiation : M&A negotiation 4. M&A : The bill of exchange at the beginning of May 12, 200, 400 U.S. buyer and buyer will immediately exercise the right of redemption at the beginning of May 5, 200.

(u) On June 8, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6, non-party 1, and non-party 4: UPD rate after the meeting of May 29, 205, the current status of UB/B recovery. 1. Total cash inputs - US$ 9 million (RBS 6.8 million US dollars, treatment 2.2 million US dollars) - Cash inputs - US$ 5.8 million (TBS - 6.00 million US dollars and 1.00 US dollars 5 billion U.S. dollars and 4.5 billion U.S. dollars in total in case of sale of 5.0 million US dollars in total: 5.5 billion US dollars in case of 4.5 billion US dollars in total and 5.5 billion US dollars in case of 1.5 billion US dollars in total and 1.05 U.S. dollars in case of 5.5 billion US dollars in advance in sale: 6.6.5 billion U.S. dollars in total and 1.5 million U.S. dollars in advance in sale.

(v) On June 15, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6, non-party 1, and non-party 4: RE: Ud Rate (June 12) 1. Total amount of cash input - 6.12.0 million US dollars - cash input - 6.12.0 million US$ 6.00,000 US dollars (new balance and XL 1.00,000 US dollars): 1.3 million US dollars (one hundred and twenty billion US dollars): 4.8 million US dollars (one hundred and fifty-three per cent of cash receipt rate) - Member's membership right - It is scheduled to file an application for provisional seizure order with the court on June 17, 190 (6/15) - Total amount of KRW 1.48 U.S. dollars in total, KRW 1.488 U.S. dollars in total, KRW 1.4888 U.S. dollars in total, KRW 4.7888 U.S. dollars in lieu of sale (in case of a notarized bill).

(w) On June 16, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6, Non-party 1, and Non-party 4’s title included in the main sentence: UPD status at CB/B W Recovery (15) - Dong member’s right: receipt of an application from the court for provisional attachment (sale bond 2 billion won, national bank 2 billion won) at the date of gold provisional attachment (sale bond 2 billion won, and national bank 2 billion won): 349,262 within 349,262 internal sales (average sales amount of KRW 147 million): The average sales amount of KRW 1,740,00, KRW 430,000, KRW 430,000, KRW 448,000, and KRW 400,000,000, the total amount of shares will be sold.

(x) On June 18, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6, non-party 1, and non-party 4: RE: Ud Rate 15) UDF (June 14,700 shares converted into 2nd Llox 15). The average sale price per share was 450 won, thereby selling the entire amount of 1,200 US dollars (400,000 US dollars and 500,000 US dollars). The remaining amount is 1,325,300 US dollars. - Total cash input amount: 9 million US dollars - 6,310,00 U.S. dollars - 6,50,000 US dollars - 6,50,000 U.S. dollars - 6,500,000 U.S. dollars - 6,500,000 U.S. dollars - 6,500,000 U.S. dollars -65,000 U.S. dollars -65,00.

(y) On June 20, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6, non-party 1, non-party 4: U.S. dollars 500,000,000 won-60,000 U.S. dollars 500,000 won-60,000 U.S. dollars 500,000 won-6,000 U.S. dollars 700,000 won-6,000 U.S. dollars 506,000,000 won-6,000 U.S. dollars 706,000,000 won-6,000 won-6,000,000 won-6,000 won-6,000,000 won-6,000 won-6,000,000 won-6,000 U.S. dollars 7,000,000 won-6,000 won-6,000 won-7,000 won-7.

(z) On July 6, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

The ticket receiver included in the main text: Nonparty 6, Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 4: RE: There is no change in the details of the state cash recovery that has passed by the UD Rate (Jly 3). However, I will again report to P.M. with the progress of the process.

Nonparty 2 sent the following emails on the same day.

Non-party 6, non-party 1, and non-party 4: UD rate of 1.6 U.S. dollars : 7.0 billion U.S. dollars - The total cash input amount of 9.0 million US dollars - the cash input amount of 13.2 billion US dollars - the cash receipt amount of 1.3 U.S. dollars - the balance of 1.3 billion US dollars - the total of 7.0 billion US dollars 9 U.S. dollars - the balance of 1.7 U.S. dollars - the total of 3.5 billion US dollars - the balance of 1.05 billion US dollars - the balance of 7.0 million US dollars - the total of 3.0 billion US dollars - the balance of 1.7 U.S. dollars 5 billion US dollars - the balance of 1.05 billion US dollars - the total of 3.7 billion US dollars 5 billion U.S. dollars - the balance of 7.9 U.S. dollars 9.2. dollars.

(za) On July 8, 2009, Nonparty 2 sent the following emails.

Non-party 6, non-party 1, and non-party 4: Ud Rate 60,00,000 on the existing report (US$ 9,00,00) with respect to Ud Rate 32/W recovery status / exchange rate CB/W investment. However, in such a manner as to determine the principal of investment at the time of investment commencement, the amount of profits vary depending on the amount of the initial investment principal at the time of investment commencement - 6,90,00 U.S. dollars - 4,00,000 U.S. dollars - 6,000,000 U.S. dollars - 3,000,000 U.S. dollars - 4,000,000 U.S. Won - 1,50,000,000 U.S. Won - 4,000,000 U.S. Won -2,000,000 won -1,64.

(zb) On July 8, 2009, Nonparty 1 sent the following emails.

Non-party 2: Non-party 6 and Non-party 4: RE: Ud Rate (Jly 6) on the recovery status of CB/BW / Foreign currency at the time of the profit and loss/exchange rate, so it is not reasonable to exchange the foreign currency held in Korean won if the foreign currency was not the investment. Accordingly, it is calculated based on Cse2 in the future, and other calculation methods are disregarded (if the original exchange rate is not returned to the exchange rate at the time of the investment).

Nonparty 2 sent the following emails on the same day.

See Nonparty 1: Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 4: RE: Ud Rate (Jly 6) on the recovery status of CB/BW / exchange rate / 900,000 U.S. dollars on the date of deposit, and the expected deposit date is July 13, 199. (Neow BW holding at par value 3 million U.S. dollars, and the investment principal was recovered in this transaction.)

(C) The details of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 2’s e-mail sending and receiving the e-mail sending and receiving the e-mail related to the CSS claim are as set forth in the 9

On January 15, 2009, Korea on January 16, 2009, Korea on January 17, 2009, Korea on January 2009, Korea on January 20, 2009, Korea on January 31, 2009, Korea-Korea on February 3, 2009, Korea - Korea on February 11, 2009, Korea on February 6, 206, Korea on February 13, 2009, Korea on February 13, 2006, Korea on February 13, 2009, Korea on February 206, 206, Korea on February 13, 2009, Korea on February 20, 209, Korea on February 24, 2009, Korea on February 14, 2009, Korea on February 20, Korea on April 20, 2009.

(7) Entry and departure details in 2009

The entry and departure details of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 2 in 2009 are as follows:

본문내 포함된 표 소외 1 소외 6 소외 2 순번 출국(목적지) 입국 순번 출국(목적지) 입국 순번 출국 입국 1 2008. 12. 31. 1 2008. 12. 1. 1 2009. 1. 3. 2 2009. 1. 15.(미국) 2 2009. 1. 15.(미국) 2 2009. 1. 20. 3 2009. 2. 5. 3 2009. 1. 25. 3 2009. 1. 24. 4 2009. 3. 1.(홍콩) 4 2009. 3. 1.(태국) 4 2009. 2. 8. 5 2009. 3. 5. 5 2009. 3. 5. 5 2009. 2. 10. 6 2009. 3. 16.(미국) 6 2009. 4. 18.(홍콩) 6 2009. 2. 27. 7 2009. 4. 2. 7 2009. 4. 21. 7 2009. 2. 28. 8 2009. 4. 16.(싱가포르) 8 2009. 6. 25.(홍콩) 8 2009. 3. 19. 9 2009. 4. 21. 9 2009. 7. 1. 9 2009. 3. 27. 10 2009. 5. 10.(미국) 10 2009. 7. 18.(미국) 10 2009. 4. 5. 11 2009. 5. 25. 11 2009. 7. 21. 11 2009. 4. 9. 12 2009. 6. 25. (미상) 12 2009. 7. 29.(홍콩) 12 2009. 4. 26. 13 2009. 7. 3. 13 2009. 7. 31. 13 2009. 5. 10. 14 2009. 7. 10. (태국) 14 2009. 9. 3.(홍콩) 14 2009. 7. 10. 15 2009. 7. 13. 15 2009. 9. 7. 15 2009. 7. 14. 16 2009. 7. 27.(싱가포르) 16 2009. 12. 4.(일본) 16 2009. 8. 27. 17 2009. 7. 31. 17 2009. 12. 6. 17 2009. 9. 6. 18 2009. 9. 3.(홍콩) 18 2009. 10. 7. 19 2009. 9. 7. 19 2009. 10. 15. 20 2009. 9. 11.(홍콩) 20 2009. 12. 4. 21 2009. 9. 13. 21 2009. 12. 7. 22 2009. 12. 2.(일본) 23 2009. 12. 7. 24 2009. 12. 25.(미국)

(8) Details of the public charges paid by the plaintiff

(A) ① The Plaintiff, from 2006 to 2011, was a deficit corporation after the deduction of losses carried forward, and did not pay corporate tax to the Singapore tax authority. The income related to the CSS bonds is a capital income subject to non-taxation under the Singapore tax law, and thus, did not pay corporate tax to the Singapore

② In 209, the Plaintiff paid securities transaction tax and interest income tax as indicated in attached Table 1> Securities transaction tax is paid at the time of selling commercial microTex and Iz’s shares acquired by exercising the preemptive rights of bonds with warrants acquired from CS. Interest income tax is withheld by the payer of loans on links and interest income generated from bonds with warrants acquired from CS (NNB, alternative venture).

③ The details of value-added taxes paid or refunded to the Plaintiff to the Singapore tax authorities are as listed below:

Amount of tax for the attached taxable year ($2006) contained in the main sentence ($2006,449.89 2007 1,323.5208 (-) 11,029.01 Refund 2009 1,859.89

(B) In 2009, the Plaintiff paid the national pension contribution as stated in the attached Table 12>

Table (units: Singapore) Employees on January 2, 2009, on April 2, 2009, on April 2009, 2009, and on June 5, 2009, on August 2009, 2009, on October 2009, on November 2009, 205, Nonparty 11,283 Nonparty 127208 Nonparty 2-1008 on November 2008, 2705

(C) On May 9, 2009, the Plaintiff paid 428 Singapore membership fees to the Singapore Chamber of Commerce and Industry in 2009.

(D) Nonparty 1 paid income tax to the Singapore tax authorities as indicated below in the Table 13>

The tax amount of the attached taxable year ($2006) contained in the main sentence (USS) 2006 29,580.78 2007 36,056.06 2009 38.317.11, 2008 38.14,706.179 2010 9,239.2011 12,325.12

(E) Nonparty 12 paid the income tax as indicated in Table 14> to the Singapore tax authorities. Nonparty 2 reported Nonparty 12-2’s earned income tax on March 1, 2010 to the Plaintiff’s employee in March 1, 2010.

Amount of tax for the attached taxable year ($2008) contained in the main sentence ($2,580.34 2009 3,274.22 2010 4,578.04 20110,757.54

(f) Nonparty 12 paid the national pension contributions as indicated in the following Table 15>

[1. P. 63, 64. 64. 7. 40, 64. 84. 84. 84. 64. 84. 64. 64. 16. 84. 64. 84. 64. 16. 84. 16. 84. 6. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 6. 84. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 84. 16. 1983 7. 14. 14. 2. 14. 201

(9) The plaintiff's other business

(A) Nonparty 1, who resides in African in Africa in 2009, was sent and received as indicated in the attached Table 16>

On January 5, 2009, including the table date in the main text, Nonparty 15 notified Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1 on the local circumstances of Kenya, and instructed Nonparty 15 on January 6, 2009, the department in charge of the power plant business of Kenya, in 2009 and in 2010, Nonparty 1 notified Nonparty 15 to Nonparty 15 on June 19, 209, Nonparty 1 to check the market development related to Belgium and Babro network business, the possibility of securing supply sources related to Habro, and the investment amount of Mabro 10, and Nonparty 15 notified Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1 on August 5, 2009, Nonparty 10 and Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 on the purchase of Mabro 15 and Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1 to supply Nonparty 1 with 90 Doro fro 2, 2000 m. 5 m.

(B) Nonparty 12 sent and received the emails as indicated in Table 17> with Nonparty 1 in 2009.

On May 14, 2009, Nonparty 12 proposed a new business model (Data). On June 3, 2009, Nonparty 12 sent the data related to investment in real estate located in the United States to Nonparty 12 on September 18, 2009, Nonparty 12 sent the data related to investment analysis of real estate located in Singapore, etc. on October 8, 2009, Nonparty 12 sent the data related to investment analysis of real estate located in Singapore, etc. on November 17, 2009, Nonparty 12 instructed Nonparty 1 to collect English non-performing assets in England. On November 19, 2009, Nonparty 12 sent the data related to investment in the shopping center located in the United States and related data.

(10) Storage documents at the time of the tax investigation.

(A) The tax official belonging to the Defendant conducted a field investigation into △ building and attached Form 30 to 75) attached the official seal of the link representative director to the CSS bonds related data (attached Form 3> and kept them in custody. The Plaintiff presented to the Singapore office an accounting data and a photograph (Evidence 49-1 to 9) of the storage site by asserting that he/she had been in custody of accounting data (attached Table 4> including the originals, including the originals, to the Singapore office. The Plaintiff failed to comply with the Defendant’s demand that “the documents proving that he/she had been in custody in Singapore office (the photograph verifying the date of de facto photographing, the documents made in Korea, and the evidence of expenditure evidence, etc. verifying that he/she had been in custody)”. However, the tax official belonging to the Defendant did not discover the documents related to the claim for a field investigation.

(B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was in custody of the accounting data from 2001 to 2008 in Singapore, and the Plaintiff submitted the documents such as the attached Table 2 ‘Attachment 2> to this court.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 3, 7 through 191, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 85 (including paper numbers), witness Non-party 6, non-party 2, and non-party 3's testimony, the result of the plaintiff's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Issues

Article 4(1) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of Singapore for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income (hereinafter “Korea- Singapore Tax Convention”) provides that “for the purposes of this Convention, a “resident of a Contracting State” shall mean a person liable to pay taxes in that State due to any address, domicile, location of the head office or principal office, place of management, or any other criteria of a similar nature in accordance with the laws of that State,” and Article 4(2) provides that “if a person other than an individual is a resident of both Contracting States, such person shall be deemed a resident of the Contracting State whose place of management and control is located. If any doubt arises, the competent authorities of both Contracting States shall resolve the problem by mutual agreement.” Article 1 subparag. 1 and 3 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 10423, Dec. 30, 2010; hereinafter the same) provides that “Where a domestic corporation has its head office or principal office in a foreign country but has been located in the Republic of Korea.”

(2) Criteria for determining the place of actual management

(A) The origin and legislative circumstances

In the end of the 19th century, the place of residence of a legal entity under the tax law was the first issue in the UK where a legal entity established a management policy at the end of the 19th century and engaged in specific industrial activities. The UK established a standard to regard the place where “important asset management and control” was performed as the place of residence of a legal entity, and this standard was the foundation for the concept of “actual management place”. The “actual management place” first appeared in the report of the European Economic Cooperation Organization in 1958. According to the report, Article 4(3) of the OECD Model Tax Treaty was derived from the practice of the tax treaty on the distribution of income from shipping, inland and inland transportation, and air transportation businesses. In light of the standard for determining the place of residence of a legal entity with double residence, the OECD adopted the concept of “actual asset management” as the “actual business model” or “actual business model” under Article 783 of the Corporate Tax Act, which was amended by Act No. 7838, Dec. 31, 2005.

(B) the Commentary of the OECD Model Tax Treaty Notes

2010년 OECD 모델조세조약 제4조에 관한 주석 제24항은 “실질적 관리장소란 해당 기업 전체의 사업수행에 필요한 중요한 관리 및 상업상 결정이 이루어지는 장소를 의미한다. 모든 관련 사실과 상황을 조사하여 실질적 관리장소를 결정하여야 한다. 법인은 다수의 관리장소를 유지할 수 있지만 실질적 관리장소는 오직 하나만 존재한다.”(The place of effective management is the place where key management and commercial decisions that are necessary for the conduct of the entity's business as a whole are in substance made. All relevant facts and circumstances must be examined to determine the place of effective management. An entity may have more than one place of management, but it can have only one place of effective management at any one time.)고, 제24.1항은 “권한있는 과세당국이 이중거주자인 법인의 거주지를 결정할 때 ① 이사회나 이와 동일한 조직의 모임이 통상적으로 개최되는 장소, ② 최고경영자 및 기타 임원이 통상적으로 활동을 수행하는 장소, ③ 법인의 고위수준의 일상적 관리가 수행되는 장소, ④ 법인 본점 소재지, ⑤ 법인의 법적 자격을 규율하는 국가, ⑥ 회계기록이 보관되는 장소, ⑦ 조약목적상 법인이 일방체약국 거주자이고, 타방체약국 거주자가 아닌 것으로 결정되는 경우 조약규정의 부적절한 이용을 초래할 위험이 있는지 여부 등을 고려할 수 있다"(Competent authorities having to apply such a provision to determine the residence of a legal person for purposes of the Convention would be expected to take account of various factors, such as where the meetings of its board of directors or equivalent body are usually held, where the chief executive officer and other senior executives usually carry on their activities, where the senior day-to-day management of the person is carried on, where the person's headquarters are located, which country's laws govern the legal status of the person, where its accounting records are kept, whether determining that the legal person is a resident of one of the Contracting States but not of the other for the purpose of the Convention would carry the risk of an improper use of the provisions of the Convention etc.)고 각 규정하여 사례별 해결방식을 채택하고 있다. 이러한 OECD 모델조세조약 주석서의 해석은 일반적으로 승인된 국제법규는 아니지만, OECD 회원국 간에 체결된 조세조약에 관하여 국제적으로 권위를 인정받는 해석기준이므로, 실질적 관리장소를 해석함에 있어 참고할 수 있다.

(C) Each country’s interpretation

The method of interpreting the meaning of the place of actual management is distinguishable from the Anglo-American method understanding as “important management and control place” and “management place” as “management place” and “management place” as “management place”. The term “important management and control place” is held by the board of directors; accordingly, means the place where the board of directors holds a place where the highest level of decision on the corporation’s business is made; and the place where the board of directors confirms the decision made at a different place. The term “management place” means the place where the highest manager of the corporation performs daily management activities, and the place where the highest manager’s residence is the highest manager’s residence if it is not clear. The two interpretation methods differences are arranged as follows.

Performance of important policy-making functions of the representative director of the board of directors as a whole of the important decision-making enterprises of the representative director of the board of directors of the actual management entity based on the standard of "important management and control place" method contained in the main text.

On the other hand, the UK and Australia take the position that “it may have an important place for management and control in two or more countries” means “it may have a place for management in one or more places.”

(D) Interpretation by the National Tax Service

In the revised tax law theory in 2006, the National Tax Service stated that “the place of actual management of business means a place where the actual management and commercial decision is made necessary for the performance of the corporation’s business.” In addition, the National Tax Service General Counseling Center submitted that “the place of actual management and decision making is an important place in the performance of the corporation’s business. Whether the place of actual management and decision making are located in Korea or not, shall be determined based on its substance, comprehensively taking into account the relevant facts and all relevant circumstances, such as the place where the board of directors exists, the place where the corporation’s highest decision is made, the purpose of the investment structure, etc.” (see, e.g., written Internet visiting Counseling 2316, Jan. 207).

(e) Relation to the domestic place of business

In light of the language, content, and purport of Article 94(1), (2), and (4) of the Corporate Tax Act, in order for a permanent establishment of a foreign corporation to exist in the Republic of Korea, an employee of the foreign corporation or a person under its instruction, through a “fixed place of business,” such as a domestic building, facility, or equipment, in which the foreign corporation has the authority to dispose of or use the foreign corporation, shall perform “essential and important business activities,” rather than preliminary or auxiliary business activities. Whether a “essential and important business activities” is “essential and important” should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the nature and scale of the business activities, as well as the importance and role of the entire business activities (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du1929, 19236, Apr. 28, 201). Therefore, the actual management place is an important management and commercial decision necessary for performing the entire business activities of the foreign corporation, while the domestic business place is different in that business activities are conducted according to such a decision.

(f) the movement of the place of actual management;

The concept of "actual management place" is derived from the fact that the place where business activities, such as marine transportation, inland transportation, and air transportation, are performed frequently, to determine the place of the corporation's residence to a certain extent stable and well-known factor. As such, the actual management place is not enough to establish several important decisions related to the corporation's business. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that, in light of the fact that Article 1-2 subparagraph 1 of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a significant decision related to the corporation's business should be made to a certain extent (Article 1-2 subparagraph 1 of the Corporate Tax Act provides for the place of actual management as equal to the "head office or principal office," and that Article 1-2 subparagraph 1 of the Income Tax Act provides that a resident is "an individual who has a domicile or a temporary domicile for at least one year," unlike the head office or principal office, to a certain extent at the time of determining the place of actual management, and that a significant decision related to the business of the corporation should be made in accordance with individual matters that comply with it).

(3) Application of this case

(a)a place in which the board of directors or any equivalent organization meetings are normally held;

(1) Domicile of members of the board of directors

The board of directors of the plaintiff consists of non-party 1, non-party 6, and non-party 9 in the business year 2009, such as the attached Table 4> The non-party 1 is a permanent resident of Singapore, the non-party 6 is a domestic resident, and the non-party 9 is a

On the other hand, Nonparty 2, a non-registered officer, had a domicile in Singapore since 2004. Article 1(1)1 of the Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of Dec. 31, 2009) regards “an individual who has either a domicile in Korea or a domicile in Korea for at least one year” as a resident, and Nonparty 1 (resident in Korea 271) and Nonparty 2 (resident in Korea 288) do not constitute a resident.

(2) Place for holding directors, etc.

There is no direct evidence that the board of directors was held in the business year 2009, and there is only a room between the executives of the board of directors as evidence (it cannot be readily concluded that the decision was made in ○○ building and △△ building). As to the resolution of the board of directors, a legitimate resolution has been made even in accordance with the method of such mail (Da. 1 (b)). However, as to the resolution of the board of directors, where such mail was sent, it was not made only in the Republic of Korea, but also in a case where it was made abroad. Accordingly, the place of holding the board of directors, etc. in the business year 2009 should be deemed to have been made in and outside the country by mail

On the other hand, Nonparty 6 cannot be seen as the actual representative of a link, Nonparty 4 as the representative director on the corporate register, and as seen thereafter, as either a domestic resident or a decision-making authority, and Nonparty 1’s office cannot be seen as having existed in ○ building, which is the location of a link. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the decision-making was made at the location of a link.

(3) Decision-making authority.

The non-party 1, as indicated in the Appendix 7> operates a domestic sales link other than the plaintiff, the "Magink US and LLC" in the United States. In the tax investigation conducted by the non-party 1, the non-party 6, and the non-party 2, the statement that "the non-party 9 was listed as a director, and is operating the "Magink US and LLC". The non-party 1 owns 93.5% of the plaintiff's shares. The non-party 1 owns the remaining shares, and the non-party 1 owns the remaining shares, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 are the representative director of the branch link. The non-party 6 is the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 6, the non-party 4, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3's decision-making decision-making by the plaintiff.

④ Nonparty 6’s involvement

The non-party 1 stated that "the non-party 2 has carried out the affairs related to the CS claims and reported it to himself and the non-party 6." The non-party 2 stated that "the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 have carried out the affairs related to the CS claims, and reported it to the non-party 1 and the non-party 6." The non-party 4 stated that the non-party 4's statement was dated January 15, 2009, the 16th of the same month, the 31th of the same month, the 11th of the same month, the 13th of the same month, the 11th of the same month, the non-party 1's 209, the 3rd of the same month, the 4th of the same month, the non-party 2's 209, the non-party 2's 209, the non-party 3, the 16th of the collection of the C claims, and the non-party 4.

⑤ Sub-committee

Since Nonparty 1 is the Plaintiff’s decision-making authority, the place of holding the board of directors, etc. should be determined on the basis of Nonparty 1; Nonparty 6, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 2, a domestic resident, correspond to the executive organ in charge of purchasing and recovering SS claims by subsidizing Nonparty 1; Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 4, as the representative or operator of a branch link, the location of the branch link (○○ building and △△ building) cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s business place; Nonparty 3, upon receiving Nonparty 2’s instructions, performed the duty of collecting SS claims in the Plaintiff’s name; thus, considering that Nonparty 6, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3’s residence and business place cannot be deemed as the actual management place.

Therefore, it is not confirmed whether Nonparty 1 had an office in the ○○ building before September 2009, and what kind of business was performed at that place (the tax officials belonging to the Defendant confirm Nonparty 1’s office in the △ building, cancel the computer password kept in the office, and confirm the mail contents by confirming the office. In addition, although there was a statement on the performance of duties in the process of tax investigation, it is difficult to believe that the statement was reversed by the testimony in the court, and there was no data on the performance of duties outside the e-mail). Considering the fact that Nonparty 1 received the mail work related to the purchase of SS bonds outside the country, and the repayment of SS bonds was made through an overseas account, it cannot be concluded that Nonparty 1’s decision was made only within the Republic of Korea.

(b)the place where the chief executive officer and other officers are engaged in the activities normally (or the place where the normal management of a corporation is carried out);

The fact that Nonparty 1’s office was not confirmed as to whether it was in ○○ building; Nonparty 1 moved abroad several times as indicated in Table 10 ’s Table 10; Nonparty 1 gave instructions or received reports (Nonindicted 6 and Nonparty 2 moved abroad several times); Nonparty 1's office was in △△ building from September 2009; however, Nonparty 1's office terminated the business of collecting ES claims other than X-ORD bonds before this date (the fact that Nonparty 3 was in receipt of instructions from Nonparty 2 and dealt with legal issues related to the collection of claims). Nonparty 1 cannot be deemed to have purchased ES bonds in Korea from January 5, 2009 to November 16, 2009, and it is difficult to conclude that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were in charge of purchasing e-mail bonds from May 14, 2009 to 16, and there is no evidence to conclude that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were in charge of purchasing e-mail bonds.

(C) Location of the corporate head office;

The location of the plaintiff's headquarters is Singapore.

(d) a country governing the legal qualifications of a corporation;

The Plaintiff was established pursuant to the Singapore Act, and the value-added tax was paid or refunded to Singapore, such as the entry in Table 11> The Plaintiff paid the national pension contributions to Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 12 in Singapore, the membership fees of the chamber of commerce and industry on May 9, 2009, and the labor income tax for Nonparty 12 in 2009.

Therefore, countries governing the legal qualifications of the plaintiff are Singapore.

(e)the place where the accounting records are kept;

In light of the fact that data related to the CSS bonds (attached Form 3) was kept in △△ building, the Plaintiff submitted accounting data other than them (attached Form 4> and accounting data (attached Form 2) by the business year of 2008, and the Defendant denied the custody of Singapore on the grounds that “it was not seized or discovered in the course of the tax investigation or on-site investigation,” but the burden of proof is against the Defendant, and it is impossible to deny the omitted accounting data in the course of the investigation, it cannot be deemed that accounting data other than CSS bonds are kept in the domestic (or △ building).

(f)a risk of inappropriate use of a treaty;

Although Nonparty 1 owned a number of affiliated companies, including a link, the Plaintiff, a foreign corporation, made investments in the CSS bonds through the Plaintiff. However, considering the fact that the Plaintiff is liable for securities transaction tax and interest income tax (attached Form 1) and the CS Hong Kong branch, on the ground that “No one year has elapsed after issuance, any bonds acquired according to the qualification of the Plaintiff are sold under the terms of sale,” the acquisition of the claims under the qualification of the Plaintiff is deemed to be a resident of the Contracting State having the location of management and control, and where there is doubt, it cannot be deemed that there is a risk of inappropriate use of the treaty.”

(g) the movement of the place of actual management;

Inasmuch as Nonparty 1 makes a decision at the board of directors or is qualified as the representative director, the actual management place should be determined on the basis of Nonparty 1. However, the evidence proved by the Defendant is limited to part of the △△ building’s △△, and Non-Party 1’s decision-making is not made at a fixed place, but is made as a me to specify the place (it is because only me can exist without minutes). The purchase and collection of SS bonds were conducted in Korea by Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 3, but this is merely an enforcement of the SS bonds’s order (the non-party 2 appears to be a subordinate agent of a foreign corporation). It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s domestic business place and its main office were continuously terminated on or before September 200, 209 to the extent that it appears to have been related to Non-Party 1’s business and its main office’s purchase and collection of SS bonds from January 5, 2009 to September 20, 2009).

(4) The theory of lawsuit

As above, the fact that Nonparty 6, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 3, or Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who is a domestic resident, were engaged in the purchase and collection of SS claims in Korea cannot be viewed as a domestic corporation (or, in so doing, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3’s conduct of business constitutes a subsidiary agent of a foreign corporation under Article 94(3) of the Corporate Tax Act, and thus, it is only possible to impose a permanent establishment tax).

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is a domestic corporation is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Jin (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)