Whether the royalties** is a domestic source income paid by △△△.

It is reasonable to view that the royalties paid by △** has been appropriated as part of the additional dues that the Plaintiff has continuously paid to △***.

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2015Guhap601 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

over**************

○○ Head of tax office

December 22, 2015

Among the parts against the defendant, the part against the defendant shall be reversed, and the judgment of the first instance on this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

9/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a subsidiary company of the United States Corporation, United States Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Cpool**"), which engages in trade business (radio communication equipment and related parts), manufacture and sales of communications equipment, etc.

"나. Q******** I********(이하 '◇◇'이라고 한다)는 이동통신방식 중 □□□□□□방식(△△△△, 이하 '△△△△'라고 한다)의 원천기술을 소유한 미국 법인으로서 그",기술을 이용하여 무선통신기기 부품 등(이하 '◇◇칩'이라고 한다)을 제조ㆍ판매하고

section 1.

(c) Don*** on the manufacturing and selling of △△△△△△△△△△ △△△ △△△S terminal.

On June 21, 1999, 21 June 21, 1999, in order to obtain licenses on the intellectual property of ○○○○.

△△△△△△△ mm card and △△△ △△ △△ △△ mick terminal license agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the following”).

'The contract of this case' was concluded.

라. 원고는 애니***로부터 ◇◇칩을 공급받아 ◇◇의 지적 재산인 △△△△ 관련 기술을 이용하여 △△△△ 방식의 무선통신기기인 △△△△ 모뎀카드 및 △△△△ GPS 단말기를 제조 및 판매하고 있다.

마. 피고는, 원고가 2007년부터 2010년까지 ◇◇칩을 공급받으면서 애니***에 지급한 대금 78,910,602,540원에는 이 사건 계약에 따라 애니***의 자회사인 원고가 ◇◇에 지급하여야 하는 로열티 10,890,458,116원이 포함되어 있고, ◇◇이 애니***를 통하여 원고로부터 지급받은 위 로열티는 한미조세조약 제14조 및 법인세법 제93조 제8호가 정한 외국법인의 국내원천소득에 해당한다는 이유로, 원고에 대하여 원천징수분 법인세로서 청구취지 기재 각 법인세 및 원천징수납부불성실 가산세를 부과하였다(이하 청구취지 기재 각 법인세부과처분을 '이 사건 처분'이라고 한다).

F. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal for the revocation of the instant disposition and the disposition of imposition of additional tax for insincere payment of withholding tax, but the Tax Tribunal filed an appeal on October 27, 2014.

Only the portion of the penalty tax in bad faith was cited, and the rest of the claim was dismissed.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers)

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) 이 사건 계약에 따르면 ◇◇에 로열티를 지급할 의무가 있는 자는 애니***의 선택에 따라 애니*** 자신 또는 원고로 결정되는데, 애니***가 자회사의 매출자료를 토대로 ◇◇에 로열티를 지급하였으므로 로열티를 지급할 의무가 있는 자는 원고가 아닌 애니***이다. 원고는 애니***에 ◇◇칩 대금을 지급하였을 뿐 ◇◇에 로열티를 지급한 바 없고, 원고가 애니***에 지급한 ◇◇칩 대금에 ◇◇에 지급할 로열티가 포함되어 있지도 않다.

2) Even if the price paid by the Plaintiff included royalties to be paid to △△**, the price is before the net selling price of the products manufactured and sold was determined at the time of the payment, so the amount of royalties to be paid to △△ cannot be determined, and since there are cases where the amount paid in addition to the name of royalties, etc. is less than the minimum royalties under the instant contract, it should be deemed that the amount paid in △△*** is not the entire royalties paid to △△△△, but only part of the royalties paid by the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition in this case, which was based on the premise that the royalty paid by △△* falls under the domestic source income of △△△△ is unlawful.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff paid royalties to △△△△△.

앞서 본 증거 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 애니***는 ◇◇으로부터 공급받은 ◇◇칩을 다시 원고에게 공급하였고, 원고는 국내에서 애니***로부터 공급받은 ◇◇칩 및 ◇◇의 지적 재산을 사용하여 무선통신기기를 제조ㆍ판매한 사실, 원고는 애니***에 대하여 ◇◇칩 공급에 대한 대가로서 애니***가 ◇◇으로부터 ◇◇칩을 매입한 단가(이하 '매입단가'라고 한다)에 일정한 금액(이하 '가산금액'이라 한다)을 가산한 금액을 지급한 사실, 매입단가에 가산된 가산금액은 2008년 3분기까지는 미화 12달러, 2008년 4분기부터 2009년 4분기까지는 미화 8달러(단 △△△△ 1x 품목에 대하여는 미화 4달러), 2010년부터는 미화 4달러였던 사실, 원고는 매분기마다 애니***에 자신이 ◇◇칩과 ◇◇의 지적 재산을 사용하여 제조 및 판매한 제품의 품목, 수량, 순판매가격 등에 관한 자료를 제출하였고 애니***는 원고로부터 받은 자료를 토대로 이 사건 계약에서 정한 바에 따라 자신과 원고 등의 관계회사가 제조 및 판매한 라이선스 제품의 품목, 수량, 순판매가격, 로열티 금액 등을 기재한 로열티 리포트를 작성하여 ◇◇에 제출한 사실이 인정된다.

In light of the following circumstances, i.e., 00 U.S. dollars* as its subsidiary company under the instant contract that the Plaintiff would have been able to use △△△△ Party’s intellectual property, i.e., 5 additional dues for △△△△ Party’s 20-year interest in the instant contract, which was found to have been able to re-assign the intellectual property of △△ Party’s ** on its own with its subsidiaries, but its sub-assigns should be subject to the limitations contained in the instant contract, exceptions, royalties and other payment obligations, and other provisions. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay △△△ Party’s interest in the instant contract * * * * * * * 10-year interest rate for △△ Party’s interest in the instant case’s 4-year interest rate for △ Party’s interest in the instant contract. The Plaintiff’s interest rate* * * * 2- interest rate for △ Party’s own interest in the instant contract.

2) Next, we examine whether the royalties paid by the Plaintiff including the additional amount is merely part of the royalties paid to △△△△.

According to the facts found above, the royalty under the contract of this case is paid in proportion to the net selling price of the license product, while the Plaintiff's additional dues paid in N**** because the net selling price of the license product was determined at a certain amount before the date of the determination of the additional dues, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the accurate royalty amount cannot be determined at the time of the payment of the additional dues.

However, as seen earlier, ① the above additional dues are paid.*** received the additional dues reflecting the expected amount of royalties from the Plaintiff, and then made a transaction in the form of payment to △△△△ on behalf of the Plaintiff. ② The additional dues paid by the Plaintiff to 2006 to 2008 are considerably superior to the minimum amount of royalties set forth in the instant contract from 2006 to 3rd quarter of 2008.*** there is no particular problem in deeming that the total amount of royalties paid to △△△△△△△△△△△ was paid from the Plaintiff. ③ In the case of the other products, the additional dues were paid from 4th quarter of 2008 to 2010 to the minimum amount of royalties set forth in the instant contract, which is less than the additional dues paid from 2010 to 4th quarter of 2009, but this is considered to have been accumulated to the extent that the remainder was included in the amount of the additional dues paid to △△△△△.

In addition to the above circumstances, considering the circumstances that the Plaintiff did not expressly state the accurate calculation basis of the additional dues paid to Do***** the details thereof, the reasons for changes in the amount of additional dues, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the royalties paid to Do**** was appropriated as part of the additional dues paid continuously to Do**.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.