(a) Obligation to withhold income tax of a foreign corporation which has no branch or business office in Korea;

(b) Whether the owner is liable to withhold income tax from the person who paid the source income by auctioning the securities

A. Although a taxing authority, which is a part of the governing authority, is not imposed on all citizens of the Republic of Korea and on all acts within the territory of the Republic of Korea, a foreign corporation cannot be imposed on any acts outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, it may be imposed in cases where the acts conducted in the territory of the Republic of Korea are subject to taxation under the current tax law, and there is no express provision excluding foreign corporations having no domestic place of business from the withholding agent under the current Income Tax Act, in light of the fact that there is no express provision excluding foreign corporations having no domestic place of business from the withholding agent, a foreign corporation which has no branch or place of business in the Republic of

B. Under the provisions of Article 540 (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Act, which applies mutatis mutandis to the voluntary auction of securities, a successful bidder shall pay the total amount of the successful bid price to the head of the office until the date of auction or the date of payment separately determined, and the amount of the successful bid price cannot be paid after deducting the equivalent amount from the successful bid price under the Income Tax Act, so there is no way for the successful bidder to withhold the income tax on the owner of the object of auction. If an auction is withheld on home, and the amount is not paid as the auction price, or the amount is received first from the head of the office of the office of the offices, the auction price to be returned to the secured party is reduced, and the income tax which comes due after the security right was established is no more than the secured bond, and it shall be deemed that there is no obligation to withhold the income from the auction price to the person who paid the source income to the owner by the auction by the method of set-off.

Article 1, Article 10 of the Income Tax Act, Article 178 of the same Act, Article 22 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Mata Industrial Company

Head of Yongsan Tax Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 2,200,000,000 against the Plaintiff on November 2, 1989 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. If Gap 1, 11, 14, 15, 16 Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2-3 of Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 1-2 of Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 without dispute, the plaintiff company is a foreign corporation which is established under the law of Japan and has no branch or business office in Korea and has no branch or business office in Korea, and the above non-party's domestic source income tax amount of 1,750,000 U.S. Corporation's shares 250,000 U.S. Tourist Corporation's 2,000 won for the above non-resident's 2,000 won for the above non-resident's 2,000 won for the above non-resident's domestic source income tax, and the above non-party's 2,000 won for the above non-resident's 2,000 won for the above non-resident's domestic source income tax to be paid.

2. The plaintiff argues that, as for a foreign corporation which has no branch or business office in Korea as shown in the plaintiff corporation, taxation right, which is part of the governing power in Korea, cannot be imposed. Second, in the interpretation of the current Income Tax Act, the plaintiff's foreign corporation like the plaintiff cannot be deemed as included in the income tax withholding agent. Third, in the auction procedure, since the person who pays the price to the owner of the object of auction is not the successful bidder, but the court or the office of the auction is considered as the withholding agent, the successful bidder cannot be deemed as the withholding agent, regardless of the fact that the court or the office of the auction executive is considered as the withholding agent. Further, the successful bidder cannot pay only the remainder which is calculated by deducting the total amount of the successful bid price and the income tax amount from the successful bidder cannot be paid to the executive agency, so it is impossible to impose the withholding duty on the plaintiff as the successful bidder

3. As to the plaintiff's first argument, since the right to impose taxes, which is a part of the right to impose taxes on all citizens and all acts within the territory of the Republic of Korea, a foreign corporation cannot impose taxes on acts outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. However, even a foreign corporation may impose taxes on the Korean government if it commits an act subject to taxation within the territory of the Republic of Korea, and as seen earlier, the plaintiff corporation paid a successful bid price corresponding to domestic source income for the acquisition of stocks within the territory of the Republic of Korea. As such, if the act is subject to taxation under the current tax law of the Republic of Korea, it may be imposed. Accordingly, the plaintiff'

In addition, with respect to the chief of the State, Article 1 (2) of the Income Tax Act provides that resident(s) and non-resident(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s))(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)))(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s))(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s.

Third, as to the following argument, where a court or a delivery officer conducts an auction to exercise the right of security upon the creditor's request, the court or the delivery officer is merely the auction institution, and the owner of the subject matter of auction is not in the position of the transferor or transferee, and the successful bidder is the transferor or transferee, respectively. Thus, in this case, the person who pays the transfer price of the subject matter of auction with respect to the above leuk morals, which is a non-resident, shall be the plaintiff, not the month, but the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the owner of the office who is not the plaintiff, is the person who pays the domestic source income tax. However, in the case of voluntary auction of the securities, Article 540 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act applicable mutatis mutandis shall be "the delivery of the subject matter of auction" and Article 540 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be re-auction if the highest bidder neglects to pay the proceeds of auction before the date of the auction set forth in the conditions of the auction, the plaintiff and the successful bidder shall not be paid the proceeds of auction to the owner.

4. If so, the pertinent taxation disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is liable to withhold the income tax on the above leap, is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s claim for revocation is justified, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Judge)