Mobilization Entertainment Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Ba-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Head of Seocho Tax Office

August 27, 2010

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,307,603,450 on May 1, 2007 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1-6, 17, 36, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4-6, 21-23.

A. DMD Co., Ltd., a domestic corporation (hereinafter “DMD”) is a foreign-capital invested company established jointly with a domestic dairy farmer on September 20, 1985 and Denmark Livestock Development Co., Ltd. (3DC), which is a Denmark corporation, and whose main business is to manufacture and sell oil, effective milk, butter and paz with milk produced milk as its raw material.

B. The attached investment structure also established Korea Diry Luxbour S.A.R.L (hereinafter “KDL”) in Korea, a Luxembourg, a Luxembourg, through joint investment in the proportion of 6.7% and 33.3% of the value of the property located in the United States of America (hereinafter “AI”), as shown in the attached Form of investment structure, and Korea, which is a Luxembourg, was jointly invested by the management of KDL and DIM, and newly established DDL and DIM, Korea, a Belgium corporation, established Diry Hrings N.V. (hereinafter “KH”).

C. On December 21, 1999, KDH purchased all the shares issued by DIM (hereinafter “instant shares”). On July 20, 2005, KDH again purchased shares of KRW 12,374,617,464 to the Plaintiff on July 20, 2005 (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005) and obtained gains on transfer of shares of KRW 12,374,617,464 (Article 98(1)4 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837 of Dec. 31, 2005). According to the above provision, the amount of corporate tax to be withheld is the smaller of the amount equivalent to 10/100 of the paid amount or the amount equivalent to 25/100,000 of the income derived from the transfer of shares, and thus, is subject to withholding tax amount of KRW 10,00,300,000.

D. On July 19, 2005, the Plaintiff, a corporate tax withholding agent for the transfer income of the instant shares, submitted an application for non-taxation and exemption of corporate tax to the Defendant on the ground of the provision that KR is imposed only in the resident state of the transferor with respect to the transfer income of the shares under Article 13(3) of the Convention between the Republic of Korea and the Belgium for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income between the Republic of Korea and the Belgium (hereinafter “Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty”), as the transferor corporation, was confirmed that the transfer income of the instant shares from the

E. From December 7, 2006, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant of the results of the tax investigation, stating that “The Defendant denies the benefits of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty with respect to the transfer income of the shares of KR and corrects the omitted portion by making the ultimate investors who belong to the actual owner of the shares,” and that the Defendant will impose corporate tax of KRW 1,307,603,450 on the Plaintiff.”

F. Accordingly, the defendant is merely a Do government-owned company established with the aim of evading taxes in the Republic of Korea by using the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, etc. and thus, the actual owner of the capital gains from the transfer of stocks is merely CVC Asian (K Gun, 6.7% shares of KDL) and the shareholders of AI, the 30% shares of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks, and the 30% shares of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks, which are owned by Luxembourg corporation and Luxembourg corporation, which hold 8.75% shares in the Belgium corporation and Luxembourg corporation, and the 10% shares of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks, which are owned by 30% shares of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks, and the 10% shares of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks are not vested in 30% of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks, 10% shares of 30% of the capital gains from the transfer of the stocks, 30% shares of the domestic residents and 105% of the tax treaty.

G. On July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition with the National Tax Tribunal, but the National Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 20, 2008.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) Since KR is apparent that it is a Belgium resident as a person who transfers the instant shares to the Plaintiff, it is against the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of strict interpretation of tax treaties, and thus, it is contrary to the principle of proportionality to deny the substance of KR by applying the substance substance principle, which is merely a legal principle under the domestic law, and to impose withholding obligations on the Plaintiff, who is only a withholding agent, not the taxpayer, and the Plaintiff, who is also a withholding agent, who is a withholding agent, is the actual owner of the instant transfer income of the instant shares. Therefore, it is against the principle of no taxation without law and the principle of strict interpretation of tax treaties and to expand the burden of withholding agent excessively.

(2) Furthermore, as an investment holding company and so-called SPC (Spei PP), which are not established for the purpose of tax avoidance and have a legitimate business objective of holding stocks of IMP, and has made an important decision by lawfully holding a general meeting of shareholders or the board of directors as an investment holding company and so-called SPC, and there is a legal entity, such as preparing separate financial statements, and operating separate accounts independently from superior parent companies, and thus, the person to whom the transfer income of the instant shares belongs is deemed KR. Therefore, the person to whom such transfer income of the instant case belongs cannot be deemed to be the person to whom the transfer income of the instant shares belongs, and shall not be deemed to have actually accrued the transfer income of the instant shares.

(3) Even if family KRH is merely a Do Governor company, CVI Asia is merely a partner that does not belong to income under the tax law. It is similar to the investment association to which the provisions of the Civil Act apply, and according to its domestic law, it cannot be deemed a person to whom the income from the transfer of stocks of this case is substantially attributed because it is not a legal entity. Furthermore, CVC Asia does not have an employee or office in Do only as it is like KRH, and as a result, it does not have a legal entity. Accordingly, CVC Asia’s final investors of CVC Asia are deemed to be a person to whom the actual income is attributed. The nationality and share ratio of the final investors of the CVC Asia on the transfer of stocks of this case are Hong Kong 1.18%, Japan 1.72%, Singapore 2.96%, Singapore 8.8%, UK 27.29%, and 17.17% of the investment shares of this case, and it is not subject to the tax treaty between the Republic of America and the United States.

On the other hand, the CSAP also has no office or employee in Hong Kong as a special purpose corporation for investment holding and lending for the affiliates of the CSAP, and the operation of CSAP is entirely responsible for the management of the CSAP, and all directors and employees of the CSAP are employees of the CSAP. In full view of the fact that CSAP is an employee of the CVAP, it is not deemed that the actual ownership of the capital gains of this case is not the actual ownership of the capital gains of this case, nor is the final investors of CSAP as well as the CSAP is the actual owner. The CSAP's share is all owned by the CSP group, but the CSP is subject to non-taxation of capital gains under the tax treaties between Korea and the United States, as a U.

Therefore, the portion exceeding CVC Asia’s Hong Kong and Washington’s share ratio among the corporate tax amount following the instant disposition is unlawful since it was collected from non-taxable objects.

(4) Since the Plaintiff’s withholding duty is merely a cooperation duty in the collection process and did not fully grant the authority to investigate the facts against the taxpayer, the Plaintiff submitted an application for non-taxation and exemption to the Defendant to verify whether the Plaintiff was liable for withholding tax on the transfer income of the instant stocks after acquiring the stocks from KR, and trusted the Defendant to verify that the instant transfer income of the instant stocks was not subject to taxation, and did not withhold taxes. The Defendant recognized the dividend income paid to KS around 2002 as the beneficial owner of the dividend income under Article 10 of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty. In full view of the circumstances, the instant disposition is contrary to the principle of trust protection.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Whether the principle of substantial taxation is applied to the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty

(A)Relation between a tax treaty and a domestic tax law

Article 6 (1) of the Constitution provides that "any treaty concluded and promulgated by the Constitution and any generally accepted international law shall have the same effect as that of the domestic law," so a tax treaty concluded with the consent of the National Assembly shall have the same effect as that of the domestic law, and in the legal relationship governed by the tax treaty, the treaty shall have the same effect as that of the domestic law, and the treaty shall take precedence over

On the other hand, the purpose of the tax treaty is to prevent double taxation and tax avoidance by adjusting the issue of the taxation right between the contracting parties. As a matter of principle, the tax treaty does not create an independent taxation right, but functions to distribute or restrict the tax right already established under the tax law of the contracting state. Matters concerning the occurrence of the taxation right are first governed by the tax laws of each country, the tax treaty determines the place where the tax treaty is finally imposed on matters which are otherwise defined in the domestic tax law, and in the application of the tax treaty, the term otherwise defined in the tax treaty shall, in principle, be interpreted in accordance with the meaning contained in the domestic tax law, which serves as the basis for the taxation right of the country concerned, unless the context otherwise

(B) Principle of no taxation without law and strict interpretation of tax treaties

Article 38 of the Constitution provides that "All citizens shall have the duty to pay taxes under the conditions as prescribed by Act," and Article 59 provides that "types and rates of taxes shall be determined by Act," thereby adopting the principle of no taxation without the law. Such principle of no taxation without the law shall be provided by an Act enacted by the National Assembly, which is a representative body of the people, and shall be strictly interpreted and applied to the enforcement of such Act. In addition, Articles 26, 27, and 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to which the Republic of Korea is a party, shall not necessarily be invoked, and the provisions of domestic law shall not be invoked in a way that justify the nonperformance of a treaty, and the language of a treaty shall not be interpreted faithfully in accordance with its "ordinary meaning". Thus, in cases of a tax treaty which is a kind of tax law, administrative convenience shall not be extended or analogically applied.

(C) Domestic legal grounds for the principle of substantial taxation

Article 11(1) of the Constitution provides, “All citizens shall be equal before the law, and no person shall be discriminated against in all areas of political, economic, social, and cultural life on account of gender, religion, or social status.” The principle of tax equality can be regarded as an expression of tax law in accordance with the foregoing constitutional provision or in the principle of equality or the principle of prohibition of discrimination. Therefore, in granting tax legislation, the State shall not only enact laws so that the burden of tax can be distributed fairly among the citizens, but also have the duty to treat all the citizens equally in interpreting and applying the tax law. One of the legal systems for realizing the principle of tax equality can be construed as the principle of substantial taxation provided in Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition, such principle of tax equality can be construed as “equal treatment” in accordance with the ideology of justice, and “equal treatment” and “equal treatment”, thereby realizing tax justice in the legislative process or enforcement process (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun-Ga38, Jul. 28, 19898).

(D) The basis for the consideration of the OECD Model Convention

With the increase in international trade, the OECD established a company on the document in a tax haven place that is not related to the actual transaction with the purpose of tax avoidance through changes in the crepan tax treaty and avoided taxes on capital transaction income, such as interest, dividend, and stock gains, through the form of transaction, the OECD has started to seek various regulatory measures for the tax avoidance activities using the tax haven since 199 through the international discussions of the OECD Harmful Tax Forum that began in 199.

Therefore, the OECD has widely dealt with the type and method of prevention of tax evasion, and the interpretation of the treaty-related provisions in Article 1(7) of the OECD Convention on the Prevention of Double Taxation, which is the basis of the interpretation of the Model Convention of the 2003 amended Tax Treaty, provides that "the primary purpose of the Convention on the Prevention of Double Taxation is to prevent international double taxation, thereby promoting exchanges between goods and services, capital and human resources." The Convention on the Prevention of Double Taxation also aims at the avoidance of tax evasion and the prevention of Fiscal Evasion" and Article 22(2) through (24) of the same Note provides that "the substance over form rule prescribed in the laws of each country", and the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention of Abuse of Taxes, such as those of control companies, are not subject to the definitions of any treaty-related laws and regulations of each country, which are not subject to the definition of any special tax treaty-related laws, and are not subject to the definitions of any treaty-related laws and regulations of each country."

The note of the OECD Model Convention is not a treaty concluded and promulgated by Article 6(1) of the Constitution, but a treaty generally accepted international law, and thus is not legally binding. However, this is an international standard for the correct interpretation of a tax treaty among OECD countries, which can be considered as one reference material for the interpretation of a treaty between OECD countries relating to substance over form principle, etc. under the domestic law.

(E) Provisions and interpretation methods of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty

(1) The purpose and structure of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty

The Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty provides that "The Government of the Republic of Korea and the Belgium Government has concluded a treaty to avoid double taxation and to prevent tax evasion on income," and that "this Convention shall apply to one party or a resident of the other country, who is a resident of the other country."

2) Interpretation of Article 13 of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty

Article 13 of the Treaty provides that the allocation of the right to taxation on capital gains at issue in this case shall be subject to the taxation in the Contracting State where the property is located, whereas Article 13 of the Treaty provides that "the profits accruing from the transfer of the property other than the property provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6 may be taxed in the Contracting State where the property is located. 2. The profits accruing from the transfer of the movable property owned by an enterprise of a Contracting State to form a part of the business property of a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State and those accruing from the transfer of such a permanent establishment (the sole or together with the entire enterprise) may be taxed in the other Contracting State. However, the profits accruing from the transfer of a vessel or aircraft operated for international transportation by an enterprise of a Contracting State and from the transfer of the movable property attached to the operation of such a vessel or aircraft shall be exempted from the taxation in the other Contracting State." Meanwhile, Article 3(2) of the Convention provides that "the profits accruing from the transfer of property other than the property provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article 4 of the Framework Act shall not be subject to taxation."

In determining the normative meaning of “resident” and “transferor” under the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, first of all, the principle of strict interpretation pursuant to the principle of no taxation without the law and the principle of faithful interpretation according to the ordinary meaning prescribed in the Vienna Convention shall be observed. However, within the meaning of the possible language, the systematic and logical interpretation method clarifying the ordinary and logical meaning of the language and text in accordance with the systematic relationship that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, etc. of the pertinent provision within the meaning of the relevant provision is for the interpretation that is most accessible to the essential contents of the relevant provision, and thus, cannot be said to contravene the principle of strict interpretation. The substance over form principle, which is the derived from the principle of equal taxation, is one of the general principles concerning the interpretation and application, etc. of the tax law, and even if Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes does not expressly provide for

Furthermore, the tax treaty does not create an independent tax authority, but functions to allocate or restrict the right to taxation established under the tax laws of a Contracting State. As such, the issue of whether the right to taxation of the other Contracting State has arisen under the tax laws of a Contracting State shall be determined by the domestic law of a Contracting State. As such, Article 3(2) of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty provides that “The term otherwise defined in the application of this Convention shall have the meaning to be contained in the laws of the Contracting State related to the tax of this Convention unless the context otherwise requires.” Thus, it is difficult to deem that the substance over form principle is in violation of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty in determining the normative meaning of “resident” and “transferor” as stipulated in Articles 1 and 13 of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty.

(f) Sub-determination

As seen above, the principle of substantial taxation under the Constitution, along with the fundamental principles on the interpretation of the no taxation without law and treaties, the basis and content of the principle, the purpose of concluding the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, and the purport of Article 13 of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, and the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and Article 4 of the Corporate Tax Act, are to realize the principle of fair taxation burden and compliance with the principle, and are equally applied to both residents and non-residents under domestic law. In full view of the above, the principle of substantial taxation can be interpreted as the basis of interpretation unless it is inferred or expanded the meaning of the language itself or goes against the language and text of the tax treaty, and the tax authority as the defendant does not recognize the ownership of the transfer income of this case as Belgium, which is a resident of Belgium under the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, and thus, it cannot be determined as income tax pursuant to the principle of substantial taxation imposed by the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty by deeming the Plaintiff to have been subject to tax withholding by 10% as a domestic entity’s tax exemption obligation.

(2) Whether KRH is the person to whom the transfer income of this case actually accrues

(A) Person to whom substance over form principle and income substantially accrue

As seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the principle of no taxation without law under the Constitution and the interpretation standards of tax treaties between the states, the purport and contents of Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the purpose of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty, and the purport of the tax exemption provisions on non-residents, etc., a corporation recognized as a resident in the Belgium under the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty shall conduct business transactions in the Republic of Korea in order to benefit from taxation exemption under the domestic law on income source in accordance with the said Tax Treaty. In determining the meaning of “transferor”, the meaning of “in accordance with the principle of no taxation without law or tax avoidance,” a non-resident with a nationality other than Belgium establishes a corporation in the Belgium for the purpose of investment in the Republic of Korea and operates a business with the name of the corporation for the purpose of acquiring capital within the Republic of Korea, and thus, the domestic corporation is only the principal investor of the transaction and the principal investor’s tax exemption under the Korean-Belgium Tax Treaty, and thus, the domestic corporation can only be deemed as the principal investor and the principal investor’s tax exemption.

Under the premise of the foregoing legal doctrine, we examine who is either the trading entity of the instant stock transfer or the actual owner of the capital gains accrued therefrom.

(B) Whether the actual owner of the instant stock transfer income is a person

Article 13 of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty does not apply to the transfer income of the instant shares, and rather, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the parties, taking into account: (a) evidence Nos. 36, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11-17, 25, 27, 28, 28, 33, and 34 and the overall purport of the pleadings; (b) as it is merely an authorized company established to acquire a resident of the Belgium to avoid taxation on the instant transfer income of the instant shares upon the sole application of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty; and (c) as such, Article 13 of the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty cannot be deemed as the actual owner of the instant shares; and (d) rather, the CVC Asia Asia and AI’s shareholder of the instant shares shall be deemed as the actual owner of the instant shares; and (e) whether the Defendant’s taxation authority is imposed on the instant shares; and (e) whether the instant shares should be imposed on the Plaintiff and others.

① As in the form of the attached investment structure, the CVC Asian and the AI located in the United States of America jointly invested at the rate of 6.7% and 33.3%, respectively, and established KDL, a Luxembourg-based Luxembourg-based Luxembourg-based Luxembourg-based Luxembourg-based Luxembourg-based Luxembourg-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based Belgium-based 11.25% on December 10, 199, and the amount of investment funds to be provided by CVC Asia, AI, and DMD-management.

② Nonparty 4, who is an investment manager of CVC Asia, signed various reports and contracts related to DVP underwriting underwriting agreement by Nonparty 4, who is an investment manager of CVC Asia (hereinafter “CVCAP”), determined investment conditions, etc. by participating in the party to the DVP underwriting agreement as a party to the DVP underwriting agreement.

③ AVP, around Nov. 1, 1999, conducted due diligence by visiting the factories of DMP, and explained the plan to establish a Belgium or Luxembourg as a result, by presenting 2) MBO franchise to DMP management on Dec. 8, 199, and immediately following that, Belgium or Luxembourg was established on Dec. 10, 1999, and immediately following the sale to the Plaintiff of the entire shares of DMP.

④ Even after having acquired DDH’s stocks, the management of DV did not report on its business activities, but did not report it to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 4, an employee of the CV AP branch, and Nonparty 1 reported the status of DV AP’s domestic market, management status, and investment status and financial status of CVC, to Nonparty 4 and 6, an employee of CVAP, on a quarterly basis.

⑤ The distribution of the DMM sales proceeds is 66.7% and 33.3% respectively by CV Asia and AI, and there is no difference between the amount under the DMF Redns-Fund I (DMF Redns-Fund I) distribution plan (DM) distribution plan prepared by Nonparty 1, an employee of the domestic branch of CVC AP branch, and the distribution of the DMM sales proceeds was remitted to CV Asia, etc. on August 8, 2005, immediately after the receipt of the DH account in the name of KR. The fact itself is expressed as “EX IT” and in this process, there was no distribution received by KRH, a shareholder of DMF.

⑥ The directors of KDH consisting of seven non-party 2, 3, 4, and 5, but non-party 2 and non-party 4 are employees of CVC AP who are in charge of investment in Japan and Asian region, and non-party 3 and non-party 5 are employees of CVC Capital Total N.V. (hereinafter “CVC Berux”).

7) The telephone number recorded in the data for inquiry by KRD’s Dun&B (D&B) is the telephone number of the staff of CVC Benex in the address of KR. The most part of the assets is the stocks of IMN and did not have been disbursed for working expenses necessary for personnel expenses and business operation.

④ There is no independent place of business, and approximately 30 corporations, including the name of the corporation of KRL, among the postal items BOX of a building located in the domicile, were merely indicated with approximately 30 corporations, and these photographs also have a minimum formal constituent element as a company simply with the non-party 4 and four employees belonging to CVC AP. From the establishment to the liquidation of KRL, most of the total assets consisting of IMH’s shares and dividend receipt, and there is no essential type of assets, such as buildings and fixtures.

9) CVC Asia studies and analyzes each country’s tax systems, tax treaties, etc. in order to maximize its profits, such as capital gains tax exempted or reduced from investment returns in the Republic of Korea in the future, and thereby establish Belgium in Belgium as an investment holding company (special purpose companies (SPC; hereinafter the same shall apply), and Luxembourg in Luxembourg. Belgium is exempted from income tax on capital gains in the Republic of Korea in accordance with the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty; Belgium is exempted from income tax on capital gains; Luxembourg is also exempted from income tax on income gains in the Republic of Korea; Luxembourg is also exempted from income tax on income in the Republic of Korea from overseas investment companies; Luxembourg is also exempted from income tax and source tax on income in the Republic of Korea from overseas investment companies; Luxembourg and Luxembourg is recognized as a representative tax haven place providing preferential taxation in the Republic of Korea, such as corporate tax, source tax on personal income tax, and low-rate tax, even at the time of taxation.

(10) In managing funds, the necessity of an investment holding company, such as KR, cannot be denied for the efficient management and operation of investment funds and investment assets. In the event of an investment through an investment holding company, the actual person in charge of actual source of funds, investment and asset management, and the ultimate person in charge of the investment profit-making, cannot be reconcept into the transactional relationship without permission. However, establishing a variety of investment holding companies in the Belgium, etc., which is irrelevant to the actual resident state of the investors of Korea or CVC Asian, and making them complicated in the investment governance structure by establishing an investment holding company in various stages, such as Belgium, which is irrelevant to the actual resident state of the investors of Korea or CV Asia, rather than for efficient management and operation of the said investment, is in accordance with the tax avoidance scheme led from the time of establishment of CVC Asia, and thus, such investment holding companies are bound to be used for tax

In addition, AI is a business entity that guarantees active participation in the same degree of management as the employees of the CLP at the same time to the extent that each member has invested in the creditors of the company in order to establish the LLC, and at the same time, it is a business entity that guarantees active participation in the same degree of management as the employees of the CLP, but is classified into a non-corporate partnership, but in tax terms, it is classified into a non-corporate partnership, and in the United States, only the income tax is imposed on the dividends corresponding to their respective shares, without imposing the tax on the corporate partnership itself.

(3) Determination as to the assertion that end investors are actual successors

(A) Whether CVC Asia is subject to corporate tax as a partner with limited liability

Article 2(1) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that a domestic corporation and a foreign corporation with domestic source income are liable to pay corporate tax under the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 1(3) provides that “foreign corporation” is defined only as a corporation with its head office or principal office in a foreign country, and does not separately define the meaning of “corporation.” However, CVC Asian was established in the form of a limited partnership (LP, LimB) in the Kado, which is a tax haven place, and there is no legal concept identical to our legal entity. Therefore, it does not directly lead to the issue of whether CVA, which is a limited partnership, is a foreign corporation under the Corporate Tax Act, under the Act applicable to the Corporate Tax Act or Kmando, is a tax haven place.

However, it can be said that there is a method of determining whether a foreign organization constitutes a foreign corporation under the Corporate Tax Act by taking into account the judicial nature of the foreign organization and taking into account the taxation treatment in that foreign organization in that country. In the taxation of a foreign organization, the tax treaty applies to the tax treaty at the stage of allocation of the right to impose taxes, but the establishment of specific tax liability is determined by the individual domestic tax law, the tax authority may demand the foreign organization to confirm daily treatment under the tax law in that country, and the same organization shall not be treated differently in the application of the domestic tax law on the grounds that the tax treatment in a foreign country differs from the tax treatment in the foreign country. Therefore, in examining the judicial nature of the foreign organization, it is reasonable to apply the domestic tax law to the foreign organization under the Corporate Tax Act by examining the judicial nature of the organization.

CVC Asia is composed of general partners with expertise in fund management, general partners with unlimited liability and limited partners with unlimited liability, who are not actively involved in fund management, and who are responsible only within the investment limit as passive investors with no involvement in fund management. It is a profit-making organization with property separate from its members and conduct its own business activities with a unique investment purpose. It is not a human combination with members with strong personal identity, but has a characteristic as an independent entity that can be the subject of rights and obligations separate from the personal identity of its members. Thus, the association under the Civil Act of Korea with unlimited liability is essentially different legal character from the association under the Civil Act of Korea with unlimited liability, and even though there is a little difference in the ownership of limited partners, its basic structure is deemed similar to the limited partnership company under the Commercial Act of Korea.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that a plaintiff most similar to a limited partnership company under our law is subject to corporate tax as a foreign corporation under our Corporate Tax Act.

(B) Whether the final investor is a person to whom it actually belongs

The burden of proof of non-taxation and tax exemption requirements in tax litigation lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du16095, Jul. 7, 2000; 93Nu13162, Apr. 15, 1994); and even if corporate tax may be imposed on limited partnerships, CVC Asia and CSAP have to prove that there is no entity as a legal entity and most of them are non-taxable investors of CVC Asia and CSAP, not CV Asia and CSAP, and that most of them are non-taxable investors of CVC Asia and CSAP, and the Plaintiff must actively prove this fact.

However, in light of the facts acknowledged in paragraph (2)(b) of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that CVC Asia and CSAP had no substance as a juristic person like KR solely with the descriptions of No. 28, No. 4, and No. 7 of the above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion based on this premise is without merit without any need to further examine.

(4) Whether it violates the principle of trust protection

(A) In general, in order to apply the principle of trust protection to the tax authority's act in tax legal relations, the tax authority should express the taxpayer's public opinion that is the subject of trust, and the taxpayer should not be responsible for the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the taxpayer's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance on the tax authority's reliance

(B) In light of the above legal principles, we find that the Plaintiff knew or could have known that the Plaintiff was not the actual owner of the stock transfer income of this case. ② The Defendant confirmed that the stock transfer income of this case was subject to non-taxation and exemption pursuant to the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty. Meanwhile, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, it is acknowledged that “the director of the tax office may correct or decide the above application in accordance with the relevant Acts if the contents are different from the facts,” and the above confirmation is merely based on the Belgium for which the resident state of Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty applies, and it cannot be deemed that the confirmation was merely based on the reasons that the Plaintiff would apply the Korea-Belgium Tax Treaty to the formal company established for the purpose of tax avoidance. ③ Even if the Defendant did not disclose the part of the dividend income of this case to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that it violated the principle of exclusion and exemption of the Plaintiff’s tax treaty, as long as it did not state the content of the investigation and exemption of the dividend income of this case.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion that tax should not be levied under a tax treaty between the Republic of Korea and the resident state, including Belgium, is without merit. Rather, as seen earlier, the actual owner of the stock transfer income of this case under the substance-over principle is the Telveler’s property, Metife, and CSAP, which is the shareholder of CVC Asia, and the Hong Kong and the Republic of Korea, which are the residence of CVC Asia and the residence of CSAP, are not subject to a tax treaty. As such, the tax authority can be exercised for CVC Asia and CSAP pursuant to domestic law.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case against the transfer income of this case in accordance with domestic law is legitimate, and it cannot be deemed that it goes against the principle of proportionality or the principle of protection of trust. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Hong-do (Presiding Judge)

1) The equity interest in KR is 59.20% in the case of CV Asia (=8.75% x 66.7%) and 17.73% in the case of CSSP (i.e., 88.75% x 3.3% x 60%). Of the transfer income of the instant stocks, an amount calculated by multiplying the aggregate of the equity interest in 17.00,000,000 won by 76.93% in the case of CV Asia by 10% in the case of CV Asia.

Note 2) The management or executive acquisition of all or part of the company's business or affiliate's business or affiliate's work for the company as a weak class of Manut is the central management or executive's acquisition of the company's business or affiliate's work for the company.

3) Corporate information/credit rating companies provide global individual companies with support services for their credit information, marketing information, purchase information, and decision-making.