Since the corporation of this case is deemed to be a subsidiary company, the disposition of this case is legitimate.

The corporation of this case is a subsidiary company which is sent all profits to the parent company, and is not a beneficial owner under the Korea-Ssa Tax Treaty, and even if the parent company is a beneficial owner of the dividend income of this case, it cannot be deemed that it directly owned the stocks of this case.

Actual taxation to international trade under Article 2-2 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act;

2015Guhap21972 Disposition of revocation of corporate tax withholding

AAAAA

○ Head of tax office

May 26, 2016

June 23, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on November 3, 2014, the collection of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the basis of the year 2009, the year 2010, the year 2010, the year 201, the year 201, the year 201, the year 201, the year 201, the year 201, and the year 200○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 21, 1980, the Plaintiff is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing tools for ship use as joint venture of EEE S.A. (hereinafter “BB”) and DDFF of a domestic corporation, a corporation, a DDF of a corporation, a domestic corporation (the first trade name is FFFF of a corporation; hereinafter “DD”).

B. With respect to the dividends paid to BB from 2009 to 2011 (hereinafter “instant dividends”), the Plaintiff withheld corporate tax equivalent to 10% of the dividend amount pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Convention between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Switzerland for the Avoidance of Double Taxation with respect to the Taxes on Income of the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Switzerland Government (hereinafter “Korea-Switzerland Tax Treaty”).

C. ○○ director of the Regional Tax Office: (a) corporate tax group against the Plaintiff from July 14, 2014 to August 29, 2014

as a result, BBB is a beneficial owner of the dividend income of this case.

Considering that the instant dividend does not exist, the Defendant notified the Defendant that the withheld corporate tax should be imposed on the Plaintiff by applying the limited tax rate of 15% pursuant to Article 10(2)(b) of the Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with Respect to Taxes on Income between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Netherlands (hereinafter “Korea-Ne Tax Treaty”).

D. On November 3, 2014, the Defendant issued a correction and notification of the Plaintiff’s KRW ○○○○○○ (including additional taxes; hereinafter the same shall apply), the corporate tax for the year 2009, the corporate tax for the year 2009, the corporate tax for the year 2010, the corporate tax for the year 2010, the corporate tax for the year 2010, the corporate tax for the year 2010, the corporate tax for the corporate tax for the year 2010, the ○○○○, the corporate tax for the year 201, the corporate tax for the year 201, and the corporate tax for the year 201 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

E. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on November 11, 2015 during the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) BB is a Switzerland corporation that has functioned as a holding company. In order to deny BB by applying the substance over form principle or the beneficial owner rule, the purpose of tax avoidance is recognized. However, BB was established on May 1961 and performed the function of a holding company as a holding company as a business acquisition and management participation in the Face industry, and the Netherlands corporation CCN.V. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”), and it did not constitute a tax avoidance purpose only for the reason that it did not have any income tax avoidance purpose and did not constitute a “CC, etc.” (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) and the “CC (C) B.V. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”)’s stock dividends from “O○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “non-U.K. corporation”) and did not have any real income tax avoidance purpose and did not constitute a “CCB”-B tax avoidance purpose and did not have any tax avoidance purpose and it did not constitute a “CCB”-B” corporation established for the same purpose as that of the Plaintiff’s tax treaty.

Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise thatCC, etc. is a beneficial owner of the dividend income of this case is unlawful.

2) If CC et al. is deemed to be a beneficial owner of the instant dividend income due to the denial of domestic BBB and the economic substance thereof, the person who directly owns the Plaintiff’s shares shall also be deemed to beCC, etc., and thus, the 10% limited tax rate shall be applied pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty, but the instant disposition that applied the 15% limited tax rate pursuant to Article 10(2)(b) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty is unlawful.

B. Defendant’s assertion

1) BB did not have any human and physical facilities, and most of the profits accrued therefrom were paid in the form of funds lending toCC, etc. The BB did not exercise shareholder rights and management rights as the largest shareholder. The Netherlands corporation,CC, etc. did not hold the Plaintiff’s stocks directly, thereby gaining benefits under the Korea-SB Tax Treaty through BB because it did not receive benefits under the Korea-N Tax Treaty. In light of these circumstances, the purpose of tax avoidance is also recognized. In light of the foregoing, the beneficial owner of the dividend income of this case is not BB butCC, etc., and thus, the instant disposition is legitimate.

2) Since the beneficial owner,CC, etc., of the dividend income of this case owns the Plaintiff’s stocks indirectly by designating BB as a Do government company, the instant disposition imposed by applying the limited tax rate of 15% pursuant to Article 10(2)(b) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty is lawful.

(c) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

D. Facts of recognition

Each of the above evidence, evidence Nos. 3, 6, 12, 13, evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9, and evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, and 9 is acknowledged as follows in full view of the purport

1) On October 21, 1980, the Plaintiff was established by the joint venture of BBB, a subsidiary of the non-party English legal entity, and DDD, a domestic legal entity. The BB acquired 60% of the Plaintiff’s shares (hereinafter “instant shares”), and DD acquired 40% of the Plaintiff’s shares.

2) On July 1998,CC, a Netherlands corporation, took over the crating business sector from the non-party English legal entity. Accordingly, BB was incorporated into the CC Group as a subsidiary of the Netherlands corporation, which is a Dutling Coke, a Dutling Corporation, which is a subsidiary ofCC, andCC owned the instant shares by indirectly owning the instant shares through the CC Coping,CC alone, and BBB.

3) BB transferred the instant shares toCC Holdings on September 22, 2011. Accordingly,CC indirectly owned the instant shares throughCC hosting andCC Holdings, and BB was dissolved on November 7, 2012.

4) At the time of paying dividends on the instant shares, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred foreign exchange toCC, a final parent company of BB, from March 24, 2009 to September 22, 2011; and (b) transferred foreign exchange toCC Holdings, a shareholder changed from September 22, 2011 to May 26, 201; (c) filed a report and payment of corporate tax, applying the limited tax rate of 10% on the withholding receipt (shareholders) pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Korea-Ssss Tax Treaty, by making the income earner (shareholders) as BB in relation to each dividend payment.

5) Since November 24, 2011, the Plaintiff reported and paid corporate tax withheld at 10% of the limited tax rate pursuant to Article 10(2)(a) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty when transferring foreign exchange to the said company.

6) Meanwhile, BB’s capital was 120,00 Swiss Francs (in the event that 1 Swiss Francs are calculated as KRW 1,200,00,000, the amount indicated in the overall plan following Swiss Francs is the amount calculated as above) from 209 to 2011. However, during the same period, the major details of BBB’s financial statements and accompanying documents, such as financial gains, dividend gains, asset disposal gains, asset management expenses, corporate tax expenses, etc. are as listed below (unit: Switzerland Francs).

E. Determination

1) As to the beneficial owner of the instant dividend income

A) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements exists on the taxable person. However, in a case where the facts that can be inferred in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are revealed, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are inappropriate to apply the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition is an unlawful disposition that lacks the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Du2378, Aug. 17, 2012).

see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

B) In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, each of the evidence, Gap evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 8, 10, 11, 14 through 16, and Eul evidence Nos. 5, which were found to be the above facts of recognition, and the overall purport of the pleadings is added to Eul evidence Nos. 5, BB is a so-called conduit company that sends all profits other than the basic maintenance expenses to the parent company, and it is reasonable to deem that the actual owner of the dividend income of the instant case is "CC, etc., which is the parent company." Thus, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit

① ABB held the shares of the instant shares andCC Section C, and held them as its main business. However, BB did not have any assets other than cash, bonds, and investment assets, and filed annual income tax on Switzerland from 2009 to 2011 with the Chairperson of the Representative Council called ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,” and paid only basic management expenses without any other payment. As such, BBB did not have any human and physical facilities such as office and employee. ② The Plaintiff appears to have paid dividends and dividends to “CC Section 209.” The Plaintiff appears to have paid dividends and dividends to “CC Section 1” from 00 to 200. The Plaintiff appears to have paid dividends and dividends to CC Section 1. The Plaintiff appears to have paid dividends to CC Section 20.

④ Switzerland is known to be a representative tax haven place, such as allowing the establishment of a special-purpose company without any business activity and granting tax benefits that exempt such special-purpose company from corporate tax. A holding company that mainly focuses on the participation in the other company in the share is subject to the zero (0) tax rate on federal corporate tax. BBB also is merely the percentage of corporate tax expenses paid to Switzerland compared to the dividend income accrued during the period in which the dividend income accrued.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch asCC owned the instant shares without going through BB, a subsidiary company, after taking over BB, etc. from the non-party English legal entity, the limited tax rate equivalent to the Korea-N Tax Treaty was applied. However, the Plaintiff asserts that there was no tax avoidance purpose. However, in a situation where, at the time of the payment of the instant dividends, institutional regulation or economic effect when the instant shares were transferred toCC, etc. through BB, the instant shares were not the same as that of the indirect ownership of the instant shares through BB,CC, etc., insofar asCC, etc. selected indirect ownership of the instant shares through BB, it cannot be denied the purpose of tax avoidance merely becauseCC, etc. directly owned the instant shares without going through BB (other than Switzerland, even if the Netherlands is exempted from corporate tax as in Switzerland, it cannot be said that the Switzerland and the Netherlands were the same for other reasons for tax avoidance purposes other than the maintenance of Switzerland, etc.’s corporate entity).

④ Since BB was established as a subsidiary of a non-party English legal entity before the Plaintiff was established, around July 1998, it is difficult to find grounds to view that there was a difference between the name and substance in the newly established company and that there was a difference between the name and substance.

7) At the time of the payment of the instant dividend, GGG used the Plaintiff’s director to serve as the general president in the Asia-Pacific region for the same period of time, and the appointment of GG as the Plaintiff’s director seems to have been made byCC rather than BB.

(8) In light of the above circumstances, the internal deliberation intent ofCC, etc. and BB cannot be deemed to have practically reverted the dividend income of this case to BB. Rather, it appears thatCC, etc. acquired control over the stocks of this case owned by BB and obtained dividend income therefrom directly.

2) Regarding the choice of the limited tax rate under the Korea-N Tax Treaty

SinceCC, etc. is the beneficial owner of the dividend income of this case, taxation on the dividend income of this case is subject to the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty. Article 10(2) of the Korea-Ne Tax Treaty provides that where at least 25% of the capital of a corporation that pays dividends by the recipient of dividends is "direct ownership", 10% of the total dividend amount shall be set at the limited tax rate, and in other cases, 15% of the total dividend amount shall be set at the limited tax rate.

In the instant case, “CC et al., as seen earlier, constitutes a beneficial owner of the instant dividend income, it is merely the purport that the instant dividend income shall be deemed to have been reverted toCC, etc. within the scope of tax law related to the instant dividend income, and it does not purport to recognizeCC, etc. as a shareholder under the Company Act. In other words, it is recognized that the beneficial owner of the instant dividend income is “CC, etc.” and that the Plaintiff’s shareholder was not BBBB but did not deny the legal personality of BBB. Furthermore, as long as the Plaintiff’s direct ownership and the “beneficial owner” were distinguished from the instant dividend income within the scope of tax law related to the instant dividend income, the determination of the direct owner shall be made by the legal substance of the instant case, and the determination of the instant direct owner and the instant shares shall not be made by the “CC” in light of the Korea-NB Tax Treaty, even if the Plaintiff had no direct ownership and the instant shares, as seen earlier.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and all of the claims are dismissed. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.