1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant's business year of August 1, 2011 against the plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part is as follows, except for the corresponding part among the judgment of the court of first instance, and is the same as the part of the “1...... developments leading to the disposition” stated in 2-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance (including summary thereof), Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

4 Under 4, the following shall be added to the right side of the 10th page “......”

【The user fee of a patent registered in the Republic of Korea among the pertinent user fee of the instant case is KRW 228,526,882 and KRW 28,373,863 of the user fee of the business year 2011 and KRW 2012, the remainder of the user fee is the user fee of a patent that has not been registered in the Republic of Korea. The instant disposition is “instant disposition” for 5th page, and when the instant disposition of imposition of additional tax is separately referred, the imposition of additional tax is “the instant disposition”.

5 The “each entry” of the 5th parallel shall be added to the right side of the “each entry” (including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2. The reasons for this part of the relevant laws and regulations are stated in the sixth written judgment of the court of first instance.

Since the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes" is the same as the entry (including the attached Form), they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Whether the application of the Korea-China Tax Convention with respect to the instant usage fee under the substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes is denied

A. As Plaintiff 1’s assertion by the parties is the beneficial owner of the instant royalty, and the disparity between the name and substance or the purpose of tax avoidance is not recognized, the application of the Korea-Japan Tax Convention as to the instant royalty under the substance over form principle under the Framework Act on National Taxes cannot be denied.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to withhold corporate tax on the pertinent royalty income in accordance with Article 12(1) of the Korea-Japan Tax Convention.