The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that the fees shall not be deemed domestic source income of a foreign corporation, in case where the designated domestic shipbuilding company delivers the paint to the domestic shipbuilding company and pays the fees to the foreign vessel owner, as a result of designating that the foreign vessel owner who has no domestic place of business in Korea or a foreign vessel owner who has no domestic place of business that is unrelated to the purchase of the vessel is used for the domestic shipbuilding company.

Article 93 subparag. 11 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6293 of Dec. 29, 2000); Article 132 subparag. 9 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1703 of Dec. 29, 2000) (see current Article 93 subparag. 11 of the Corporate Tax Act)

Ack Co., Ltd. (formerly changed: Mauritius Co., Ltd.) (Attorney Choi Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of Ansan Tax Office (Attorney Process-at-Law)

Seoul High Court Decision 2003Nu584 delivered on January 9, 2004

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and held that it is reasonable to interpret that the subject of "business conducted in Korea" under Article 132 (9) 9 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act is a foreign corporation, not a domestic corporation, and therefore, the foreign ship owners who have no place of business in Korea or a domestic place of business not related to ship purchase designate a supply company to be used for shipbuilding by so-called "ship options" which the domestic shipbuilding company has against the domestic shipbuilding company as the plaintiff company, and even if the plaintiff company paid the fees to the domestic shipbuilding company, it cannot be deemed that the business was conducted in Korea or the foreign ship owners are engaged in the goods brokerage business in Korea, and therefore, the fees of this case cannot be deemed as an economic interest that the foreign corporation received in relation to the business conducted in Korea.

In light of the relevant laws and records, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of domestic source income as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)