1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant’s portion reverted to the Plaintiff (won) for the year 2009 is 450.

1. The reasons why the court has used this part of the disposition are as stated in the part concerning “1. The reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance,” and thus, this part is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) B is an effective Switzerland corporation that functions as a holding company. In order to deny B by applying the substance over form principle or the beneficial owner rule, the purpose of tax avoidance is recognized. However, B, around May 1961, performed the function of a holding company as a holding company established without the purpose of tax avoidance and as a business participation, and the Netherlands E N.V. (hereinafter “E”), E, F B.V. (hereinafter “F”), and G B.V. (hereinafter “G”).

[2] Article 10(2)(a) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty provides that “A company shall be deemed to have been a beneficial owner of the dividend income under the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty and Article 10(2)(b) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty, and Article 10(2)(a) provides that “A company shall be deemed to have been a beneficial owner of the dividend income under the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty and constitutes a beneficial owner of the dividend income under the Korea-N Tax Treaty, on the ground that both the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty and the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty are identical with the limited tax rate on dividend income, and no actual tax evasion exists.” In full view of these circumstances, “B” is deemed to have been a beneficial owner of the dividend income under the Korea-N Tax Treaty, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that E, etc. is deemed to have been a beneficial owner of the dividend income under the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty.”