The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. The principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where there is a separate person to whom the income, profit, property, transaction, etc. belongs, unlike the nominal owner, should be the beneficial owner as the taxpayer.

Therefore, in a case where a person to whom property belongs is not capable of controlling and managing property, and there is another person who substantially controls and manages property through control, etc. over the nominal owner, and the disparity between the nominal owner and the substance arose from the purpose of tax evasion, income on the property shall be deemed reverted to the person who substantially controls and manages the property, and such income belongs to the person who is liable for tax payment. This applies to the interpretation of tax treaties having the same effect as the law, barring any other special provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du3159, Apr. 11,

The lower court: (1) The International Peatum Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “IP”) held 100% shares and established for the purpose of investing in the petroleum-related projects among the countries around the world; (2) the IPIC holds 100% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff who is a corporation Austria; (3) the IPIC holds 9.93% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff who is a corporation of the Netherlands; and (4) the IPRs GmbH holds 07% of the remaining shares issued by the Plaintiff; and (3) the Plaintiff holds 49,016,485, 100 won per share issued by Hyundai Heavy Industries Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Nan Heavy Industries”); and