Whether the allowance for severance benefits can be succeeded

It is reasonable to view the relevant company as the entrusted management company of the retired employee, not the entrusted management company of the retired employee, but the actual employer.

Article 33 (Inclusion of Retirement Benefits Reserve Fund in Loss)

1. The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 576,568,870 for the business year 199 against the Plaintiff on June 10, 2004, in excess of KRW 43,517,275, and the imposition disposition of KRW 10,661,070 for the first time in 199, in excess of KRW 5,934,048, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 30% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 70% is borne by the Defendant, respectively.

The imposition disposition of each corporate tax on June 10, 2004 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in excess of the legitimate tax amount and each of the imposition disposition of each value-added tax shall be revoked.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, evidence 1-2, evidence 2-1-2, evidence 3-1-2, evidence 4-1, evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-1-14, evidence 17, evidence 18, and evidence 19-1-3.

A. (1) On October 29, 1990, the Plaintiff (the former ○○○ Company) entered into a seafarer management contract with ○○ Company, a related company as a seafarer management agency (the trade name before the change is ○○○ Company; hereinafter the same shall apply) and transferred the Plaintiff’s crew members to ○○○○○○. On March 31, 199, the Plaintiff (the former ○○ Company) entered into a seafarer management contract with the relevant affiliated company, and went on the Plaintiff’s ship by taking over the Plaintiff’s crew members on board the ship. On March 31, 199, the Plaintiff (the former ○○ Company) entered into accounts as acquiring the amount equivalent to the retirement benefits that the former business operator should pay

(2) From March 199, the Plaintiff used six vessels owned by a foreign vessel owner of ○○ nationality from around March 199 through a charter contract with the crew registry, and performed accounting by adding the amount of money received from a foreign vessel owner as retirement allowances of seafarers other than agency commission to the account of retirement allowances (which refers to the labor expenses agreed upon at the time of retirement in return for the efforts provided before retirement. However, a corporation is not currently obligated to pay, but is not obligated to pay at the time of retirement, and thus constitutes a fixed debt) and included only agency fees received from a foreign vessel owner in the base of value-added tax.

(3) The Plaintiff filed a corporate tax and value-added tax return on the basis of the above accounting accounts.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered a decision of correction against the Plaintiff as follows.

(1) On March 31, 1999, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the sum total of retirement benefits paid in lump sum, which was not established during the period entrusted by the main seafarer, was temporarily transferred to deductible expenses with respect to the accounting for acquiring retirement benefits that was performed by the Plaintiff, which was a related company, to be directly managed by the ○○○○○○; and (b) deemed that the total amount of retirement benefits paid in lump sum, which was not established during the entrusted management period of the key seafarer, was deducted from deductible expenses; and (c) deemed that the excess amount of retirement benefits paid in excess of the retirement benefits paid in deductible expenses was re-calculated as deductible expenses; and (d) 4,297,295 won of purchase tax invoices received from the ○○○○○○ in connection with the service transaction of the key seafarer’

(2) While the Plaintiff did not treat the seafarers sent to a foreign shipowner company (hereinafter referred to as the “accompanied seafarers”) during the period from 1999 to 2002 as the Plaintiff’s employee and included the retirement allowances in deductible expenses by appropriating the retirement allowances as retirement allowances for the dispatched seafarers during the period from 1999 to 2002, the Plaintiff appropriated part of the retirement allowances as the amount of the retirement allowances received from the foreign shipowner as the amount of retirement allowances for the dispatched seafarers during the period from 1999 to 2002 (the total amount of KRW 510,898,257 (the total amount of KRW 141,702,938, 125,92,302, 200, and KRW 262,102, and KRW 135,940,915).

(3) From January 1, 1999 to February 2003, the Plaintiff filed a value-added tax base return on only the amount equivalent to agency fees, which is the value-added tax base, even though the total amount received by claiming human resources management expenses, etc. for the consignor seafarers under the seafarer dispatch contract with foreign vessel owners for the charter vessel of the crew. As such, the Defendant deemed the difference as the amount omitted from the return of value-added tax base for value-added tax.

C. Therefore, on June 10, 2004, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing corporate tax and value-added tax on the Plaintiff, as shown in the separate sheet of imposition tea.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Corporate tax portion

(A) The key seafarer received retirement allowances in cash or in the form of shares from the Plaintiff Company, and thereafter, after entering ○○○○○○, he received wages from ○○○○○○, and paid medical insurance, national pension, etc. to the key seafarer. As such, the key seafarer’s employer is deemed ○○○○○○, and thus, it is unlawful that the employer of the key seafarer is the Plaintiff, who was an employer of the key seafarer, included KRW 1,017,255,215 in deductible expenses for the amount exceeding

(B) In light of the contents of the seafarer management contract, such as “the shipowner shall be held liable as an employer of a seafarer, rather than a simple bareboat charter (Article 17 of the contract),” and “the agent shall make effective payment to the seafarer by the shipowner on behalf of the shipowner (Article 10 of the contract),” etc., that the Plaintiff is merely a seafarer management agency, and the employer is clear that the consignor is a foreign shipowner, even though the consignor is the shipowner, it is illegal to include KRW 510,898,257 of retirement allowance received from a foreign shipowner during the period of transmission on the premise that the consignor is the Plaintiff.

(C) Therefore, the disposition of the instant corporate tax is unlawful, and thus, the revocation is sought as stated in the purport of the claim.

(2) Value-added tax portion

(A) For the foregoing reasons, the employer of the key seafarer is ○○○○, and thus, in imposing the value-added tax on January 1, 1999, it was unlawful to deduct the input tax amount of KRW 4,297,295 from the deductible expenses, which was received from ○○○ in relation to the service transaction of retirement allowances.

(B) As seen earlier, since an employer of a dispatching seafarer is not the Plaintiff but a foreign vessel owner, the Plaintiff is a foreign vessel owner and thus is obligated to pay personnel expenses for the crew, even if the Plaintiff received personnel expenses other than agency fees from a foreign vessel owner, this is merely a performance of a foreign vessel’s obligation to pay the personnel expenses. Moreover, the established rules of the tax authority (Additional 46015-2594, August 31, 1999) also stipulates that the entrepreneur operating a shipping agency provides services related to the entry and departure of the relevant vessel on behalf of the owner of an overseas vessel, and also receives public charges, transportation expenses, etc. to be borne by the owner of the relevant vessel in return for the provision of services related to the entry and departure of the relevant vessel, the value-added tax base is that the agent fees, transportation expenses, etc. should be included in the zero tax base because it cannot be deemed that the agent fees, etc. are value-added tax for the seafarer management provided for the dispatching seafarer.

Even if not, in this case, the Plaintiff entered into accounts in accordance with the practice of the relevant industry and filed a value-added tax base on the basis thereof. Whether labor cost for the transmitting seafarers is included in the value-added tax base shall be deemed to fall under the case where there is a conflict of opinion in the interpretation of the tax law. Moreover, even if the zero-rate tax base is reported less than the actual tax base, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to expect that the Plaintiff would return the zero-rate tax base including labor cost, because there is no economic and substantial incentive to report the zero-rate tax base less than the actual tax base or to manipulate the time of supply, and thus, there is no justifiable reason for

(C) Therefore, the instant disposition of value-added tax is unlawful, and thus, the revocation is sought as stated in the purport of the claim.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) In the instant case, the issue of whether the instant disposition is legitimate depends on whether the pertinent seafarer and the transmitting seafarer can be seen as the Plaintiff respectively, and thus, it should be seen first.

(A) Key seafarer

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6-1 through 7, Gap evidence 8-1 through 4, Gap evidence 11-1 through 3, Gap evidence 12-1 through 4, Gap evidence 17, 18, Gap evidence 19-1 through 5, Gap evidence 20-1, 20-2, Gap evidence 21 through 23, Gap evidence 24-1 through 33, Gap evidence 26-1 through 14, Gap evidence 27, Gap evidence 1 through 10, Gap evidence 39-1 through 4, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 4-4, Gap evidence 5-1 through 14, Gap evidence 27, 28-1 through 10, Gap evidence 39-4, Gap evidence 1 through 40-4, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 4-1 to 4-4, Eul evidence 1-4, and evidence 4-2.

On November 1, 1989, the plaintiff presented a plan for the plaintiff's crew members to resign from the plaintiff company to work for ○○○ after leaving the company so that benefits from the company disclosure can return to the support.

(C) On October 30, 1990, the Plaintiff conducted a survey on the reorganization/stock conversion of retirement allowances in preparation for corporate disclosure, and selected one of the measures to convert the total amount of retirement allowances into stocks to the seafarers belonging to the Plaintiff, some of the retirement allowances shall be converted to stocks, and the payment of part of the retirement allowances shall continue to work in cash in the Plaintiff Company and the receipt of retirement allowances at the time of retirement.

As a result, 134 of the Plaintiff’s 329 seafarers applied for retirement, and 132 of the retirement applicants retired from office on October 31, 1990, and 2 of the remaining two of the retirement applicants thereafter retired from office, and the Plaintiff withheld and paid the retirement income tax while settling accounts for retirement allowances to the retired seafarers.

The seafarers of the Plaintiff Company were employed in the ○○○○○○○. The ○○○ concluded with the Plaintiff’s seafarer management agreement, and claimed the Plaintiff for the service fee included in the retirement allowance every year, while accumulating the retirement allowance for the key seafarers (including part of the seafarers employed directly by ○○ in addition to the seafarers who retired from the Plaintiff Company and immediately joined ○○○○○○, and directly employed by ○○○). In addition, the ○○○ paid medical insurance premium, national pension premium, etc. for the key seafarers. In addition, the ○○○○ paid the amount of benefits to the key seafarers or the amount of non-refluent encouragement.

On December 31, 1992, the Plaintiff entered into a seafarer management contract with the North East-dong vessel on the subject of management of the seafarers who remain without retirement of the Plaintiff company. According to the above seafarer management contract, the employment conditions, personnel management, etc. of seafarers are subject to the Plaintiff’s employment rules (Article 4).

On the other hand, on October 29, 1990, the Plaintiff entered into a seafarer management agency agreement with ○○○ on the subject of the service of the seafarer (point crew). According to the above agency agreement, the shipowner’s agent (○○○) has the agent pay monthly pay, annual pay, and the amount equivalent to retirement pay, etc. to the above seafarer in accordance with the agency’s seafarer employment rules (Article 3). The agent has the agent, on behalf of the shipowner, recruit and manage the crew necessary for the navigation of the vessel, and perform all duties related to the shift of the crew, etc. (Article 5).

㉳ ○○○이 작성한 1990년 퇴직급여충당금조정명세서에는 1990년 현재 선원이 130명으로 기말 현재 전사용인 퇴직시 퇴직급여추계액이 0원으로 기재되어 있는데 위 130명은 모두 1년 미만 근로 사용인이고, ○○○이 제출한 중소기업기준 검토표에 의하면 사용종업원수가 1998년에는 연평균 135명으로 기재되어 있으나, 1999년에는 연평균 5명으로 감소된 것으로 기재되어 있다.

2) Determination

On the other hand, based on Article 29 of the Seafarers Act (in concluding a seafarer labor contract, the shipowner shall specify wages, working hours, and other working conditions in relation to the seafarer), the shipowner shall not be deemed an employer of the seafarer immediately. In light of the contents and degree of the right to control and manage the seafarer's subordinate relationship with the seafarer, it shall be decided whether the shipowner is the employer. According to the above facts, since the seafarer entered the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, not merely the status of the worker acting on behalf of the plaintiff, the ○○○○ paid wages to the disputed seafarer while recognizing and managing the controversial seafarer as his employee, but also paid medical insurance, national pension, etc., and set up allowance for severance and retirement benefits for the disputed seafarer. Therefore, it is reasonable that the pertinent seafarer is the employer of all the issues after the retirement of the Plaintiff company.

(b) Forwarding seafarers;

1) Facts of recognition

The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be recognized by comprehensively considering the whole purport of evidence Nos. 2-2, 13, 14-2, 15-1 through 4, 38-1, 2, and 20-2.

Since the Plaintiff entered into a term charter contract with a foreign vessel owner on February 5, 1998, the Plaintiff signed a term charter contract with ○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○○○○○). Around March 1999, the Plaintiff signed a charter contract with a foreign vessel owner by leasing six vessels owned by a foreign vessel under a charter contract with a crew unit, and the Plaintiff’s vessel (private vessel) while performing seafarer management duties under a seafarer management contract with the intent to supply a crew to a foreign vessel (management vessel) and a crew to be on board a foreign vessel (management vessel) by an order of the Plaintiff’s personnel management.

(B) On December 15, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a seafarer management contract with the foreign vessel owner of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (○○○○○○○○○○○○○). According to the above management contract, the Plaintiff’s agent under the approval and supervision of the shipowner (Article 7) carries out an effective payment on behalf of the shipowner for the shipowner to pay to the seafarer by the shipowner in accordance with the provisions of the employment contract (Article 10), and the agent is obliged to forward the particulars of the shipowner’s payment to the agent or the captain according to the seafarer management contract, the seafarer management contract, and the employment contract (Article 13).

A written answer to the question of the Defendant’s head of the Maritime Affairs Team, which caused the occurrence of a disciplinary action against the Plaintiff, refers to the following: (a) if the captain makes a report to the Plaintiff due to the fault of the crew, etc., the captain makes a resolution on disciplinary action by the Plaintiff’s personnel committee, and the president of the Plaintiff’s company makes a final decision; (b) the difference between the crew on board the management vessel and the crew on board the management vessel is the same as the wages, salary, etc.; (c) the expenses for the crew on board the management vessel shall be claimed from the Plaintiff after receiving the funds from the Plaintiff; (d) the crew on board the management vessel is an employee belonging to the Plaintiff, and there is no difference in the wages, etc. other than receiving from the owner due to the period of service; and (e) the crew on board the management vessel shall not be treated equally because the payment, etc. is applied to the cases where the crew on board the management vessel is on board the management vessel or all wages, etc.

After receiving the agency commission and the amount equivalent to retirement allowances for the shipping seafarer from a foreign vessel owner, the plaintiff was included in deductible expenses by not immediately paying to the shipping seafarer who is required to retire from the plaintiff company, but making a guidance to the retirement allowance.

2) Determination

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view the dispatching seafarer as the plaintiff as the plaintiff, since the plaintiff did not dispose of the dispatching seafarer who is not obligated to pay a retirement allowance during the period of forwarding and did not dispose of the retirement allowance as the plaintiff's employee at the time of forwarding and included the retirement allowance in the calculation of losses. Unlike the contents of the seafarer management contract with a foreign shipowner, the plaintiff is deemed to exercise his authority without any control from the shipowner. There is no difference between the plaintiff and the crew on board a private ship and the management ship, and there is no difference in the wages, salary, salary, etc. according to the continuous service period.

(2) Corporate tax portion

(A) Corporate tax of 1999

1) Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful

As seen earlier, it is unlawful for the Defendant to impose corporate tax in the year 199 on the part of the allowance for severance benefits under the premise that the employer of the pertinent seafarer is the Plaintiff, thereby imposing corporate tax in 1,017,255,215, which is the excessive ceiling of the allowance for severance benefits, on the premise that the pertinent seafarer retired from the Plaintiff Company.

However, as seen earlier, it is legitimate to include the part (141,702,938 won in the case of 1999) that the Defendant received from a foreign vessel owner as retirement allowance in the gross income.

(ii) a reasonable amount of tax;

Therefore, if only the excess limit of 1,017,255,215 won among the allowances for severance and retirement benefits excluded from deductible expenses is again included in deductible expenses and the reasonable tax amount is calculated, it shall be 43,517,275 won, as seen in the legitimate tax amount column of corporate tax calculation in the attached Table 199.

The amount of tax to be deducted and notified shall be KRW 5,934,048, as seen in the justifiable tax amount column.

(B) value-added tax from 2nd 1999 to 2nd 203

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s employer is still the Plaintiff, and the total amount received from a foreign vessel owner constitutes a zero-rate tax base, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part, which is premised on the premise that the foreign vessel owner is an employer of the dispatching seafarer, cannot be accepted.

Furthermore, the circumstance cited by the Plaintiff alone cannot be seen as a justifiable ground for exemption from the imposition of the penalty tax for failure to report the zero-rate tax base as seen earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.

(4) The theory of lawsuit

Ultimately, the portion exceeding KRW 43,517,275 in the disposition of imposition of KRW 576,568,870 in the business year of 199, and the portion exceeding KRW 5,934,048 in the disposition of KRW 10,661,070 in the business year of 199, is unlawful, and the remainder is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

List of Impositions

Year

Division of machinery

Items of Taxation

Amount of imposition

Amount of legitimate tax;

199

Corporate Tax

576,568,870 won

25,666,654 won

202

Corporate Tax

128,989,030 won

15,895,299 won

199

1. Initials

Value-added Tax

10,661,070 won

0 won

199

2 Initials

Value-added Tax

1,278,770 won

0 won

200

1. Initials

Value-added Tax

1,037,110 won

0 won

200

2 Initials

Value-added Tax

1,269,270 won

0 won

201

1. Initials

Value-added Tax

14,374,360 won

0 won

201

2 Initials

Value-added Tax

15,502,710 won

0 won

202

1. Initials

Value-added Tax

15,388,030 won

0 won

202

2 Initials

Value-added Tax

13,259,540 won

0 won

203

1. Initials

Value-added Tax

2,363,290 won

0 won

203

2 Initials

Value-added Tax

1,155,860 won

0 won

Details of the corporate tax calculation for the business year 1999

(unit: Won)

Classification

Original Correction ①

Political Tax Amount ②

Difference (B-1)

Net profit per account settlement;

5,918,933,565

5,918,933,565

0

Amount of income;

Conciliation

Gross income

61,262,729,682

60,245,474,467

(1,017,255,215)

Inclusion in Loss

63,427,983,723

63,427,983,723

0

Reduction Reduction Income Amount

3,753,679,524

2,736,424,309

(1,017,255,215)

The amount exceeding the designated donation;

Inclusion of carry-over amount

13,132,510

13,132,510

Amount of income for each business year

3,740,547,014

2,723,291,79

(1,017,255,215)

Losses carried forward

2,218,301,685

2,218,301,685

Tax Base

1,522,245,329

504,990,114

(1,014,255,215)

Tax Rate

0.28

0.28

calculated tax amount

414,228,692

129,397,232

(284,831,460)

Tax amount deducted or exempted

Amount of deducted tax

414,228,692

129,397,232

(284,831,460)

Additional Tax

280,461,974

32,241,836

(248,220,138)

Total determined tax amount

694,690,666

161,639,068

(533,051,598)

Amount of tax deducted (payment, etc.)

83,855,602

83,855,602

0

Amount of tax to be deducted and collected

610,835,064

7,783,466

(533,051,598)

The amount of original determination (revision) tax;

34,266,191

610,835,064

576,568,873

Amount of tax notified after deduction

576,568,873

43,517,275

(533,051,598)

Additional tax amount: 32,241,836=10,860,748 +21,381,088)

Omission of Report: [35,988,836 (General Subcommittees)x10%]

+ [36,309,558 (Unfair)x20%) =10,860,748 won

Good Faith: [129,397,232-108,685,154 +7,200,570]x5/532 days

0

Details of calculation of the value-added tax for one year 199

(F) Commission: Won

Classification

Original Correction

Amount of legitimate tax;

Amount of increase or decrease

Tax Base

34,428,835,698

34,428,835,698

0

Tax amount payable

Sales amount

6,464,813

6,464,813

0

Purchase Tax Amount

44,083,401

48,830,696

4,297,295

Vehicle reduction meters

-37,618,588

-41,915,883

-4,297,295

Reduction and Exemption Tax Amount

0

Additional Tax

6,476,242

6,046,513

-429,792

Tax amount already paid

-41.803.418

-41.803,418

0

Amount of tax notified after deduction

10,661,072

5,934,048

-4,727,024

Additional Tax on negligent tax returns 593,404,745 won X1% =5,934,048 won

Additional tax 112,466 won initially imposed

Relevant statutes

Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5581, Dec. 28, 1998)

Article 33 (Inclusion of Reserves for Retirement Benefits in Calculation of Losses)

(1) Where a domestic corporation appropriates allowances for severance benefits as losses in order to appropriate for the retirement benefits of officers and employees in each business year, they shall be included in deductible expenses within the limit of the amount calculated under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 15970 on December 31, 1998)

Article 60 (Inclusion of Reserves for Retirement Benefits in Calculation of Losses)

(1) The “amount calculated as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 33 (1) of the Act shall mean the amount equivalent to 10% of the total benefits paid to officers or employees who have worked continuously for one year during the concerned fiscal year (referring to the total amount of benefits under Article 44 (3) 2).

(2) The amount of the accumulated funds included in the calculation of losses under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be limited to 40% of the estimated amount which would have to be paid as retirement benefits if all officers or employees employed as of the end of the concerned fiscal year were to retire (not including the amount not included in the calculation of losses under the provisions of Article 44).

(3) The amount appropriated as retirement benefits conversion funds under the National Pension Act by a domestic corporation shall be added to the limit of investment amount of the retirement benefits funds included in the calculation of losses, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph

Enforcement Rule of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy No. 86 of May 24, 199)

Article 13 (Calculation of Retirement Allowances)

(4) In case of actual retirement as prescribed in Article 34 (1) of the Decree, it shall include the case falling under any of the following subparagraphs in which the corporation has actually paid retirement benefits in accordance with the payment rules for retirement benefits: Provided, That the transfer to a corporation in which the corporation has direct or indirect investment relation with the corporation concerned may not be considered as a real retirement:

1. Where any employee of the corporation takes office as an officer of the corporation;

2. Where any officer or other employee of a corporation retires through an organizational change of the corporation; and

3. Where any officer or other employee of a corporation retires by merger.

4. Where he pays retirement allowances by interim settlement under Article 34 (3) of the Labor Standards Act.

General Rule 2-6-1313 of the former Corporate Tax Act / [Disposition of Retirement Benefits in Case of Workers' Transfer or Acquisition by Business Transfer or Acquisition];

(1) Where a corporation has agreed to accept (including takeover of an organization retirement insurance contract) the total amount equivalent to retirement benefits to be paid by all business operators at the time of acquisition while taking over an employee from another corporation or business operator due to any of the following subparagraphs, and shall pay the total sum of the period of service of the former business operator at the time of payment of retirement allowances to the relevant employee in accordance with the corporation's rules on payment of retirement allowances, the retirement allowances for the relevant employee and the estimated amount of

1. When he has taken over (including the acquisition of one workplace or business from among several workplaces or businesses) a business from another corporation or an individual entrepreneur;

2. Merger of corporations;

3.Entry and exit between direct or indirect investment-related corporations in the proviso of paragraph 4 of Article XIII.

(2) Where the retirement benefits are paid by adding up the period of service at the time of acquisition to the former business operator who fails to take over or takes over the shortage of the amount of retirement benefits from the former business operator, the amount which has not been taken over or has been taken over shall be deemed to be the acquisition amount of liabilities that have no obligation to pay to the former business operator, a detailed statement equivalent to the amount of retirement benefits by employee shall be prepared, reserved to include the same amount in deductible expenses in the calculation of the income amount for each business year of the business year which includes the date of acquisition, and the disposition of the same simultaneously to deductible expenses shall be made to the former business operator pursuant to Article 94-2 of the Decree,

(3) If a corporation which has accepted an employee separately manages the amount exceeding 50/100 of the estimated amount of retirement benefits at the time of acquisition among the amount received for retirement benefits under paragraph (1), and appropriates the amount for retirement benefits to be paid at the time of the employee's retirement, such amount shall not be included in the accumulated amount of retirement benefits allowances under Article

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 13 of the Act and Article 18 of the Decree, an amount equivalent to retirement benefits at the time of employee transfer paid by a corporation to a business operator who accepts where the employment relationship with the employee is substantially extinguished by transferring the employee to another business operator shall be offset by the retirement benefits reserve funds and the shortage shall be included

Basic Act

Article 14 (Real Taxation)

(1) If the ownership of the income, profit, property, act or transaction subject to taxation is nominal and there is another person to whom it actually belongs, the tax-related Acts shall apply to such person to whom it actually belongs as a taxpayer.

Seafarers Act;

Article 28 (Contract in Violation of this Act) Where a seafarer labor contract stipulates working conditions which fall short of the standards prescribed by this Act, a seafarer labor contract shall be null and void only for such portion. In such cases, the relevant null and void portion shall be governed by the standards

Article 29 (Specifying Terms and Conditions of Employment) A shipowner shall specify the wages, working hours, and other working conditions of a seafarer in a contract for the seafarer labor contract. The same shall apply to any revision to a seafarer labor contract.

Article 33 (Restriction on Set-off) A shipowner shall not offset his claim on a seafarer and his obligation to pay wages: Provided, That this shall not apply in case where the offset amount does not exceed one third of ordinary wages.

Article 34 (Restriction of Termination, etc. of Seafarer Labor Contract)

(1) A shipowner shall not cancel a seafarer labor contract without justifiable grounds, or take temporary retirement, suspension from office, reduction of wages and other disciplinary measures.

Article 43 (Report of Seafarer Labor Contract)

(1) A seafarer who has entered into a seafarer labor contract and a shipowner who has entered into a seafarer labor contract shall prepare a seafarer labor contract and report it to the maritime affairs and fisheries authority before the seafarer leaves the Republic of Korea to board the ship or to board the ship. In this case, where the seafarer labor contract with the same contents is repeatedly entered into in advance, the report may be substituted by submitting documents proving the execution of the contract.

(2) Where the shipowner prepares and reports the rules of employment pursuant to Article 109, the seafarer labor contract prepared pursuant to the rules of employment shall be deemed to have been reported pursuant to paragraph (1).

Value-Added Tax Act

Article 11 (Application of Zero Tax Rate)

(1) The zero tax rates shall apply to the supply of the following goods or services:

1. Exported goods;

2. Services supplied overseas;

3. International navigation services by ships or aircraft; and

4. Goods or services for earning foreign currency other than those as referred to in subparagraphs 1 through 3, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Article 13 (Tax Base (amended by Act No. 5585, Dec. 28, 1998)

(1) The tax base for value-added taxes on the supply of goods or services shall be the aggregate of the following values (hereinafter referred to as "value of supply"): Provided, That value-added taxes shall not be included:

1. Where payments are given in money, the payments;

2. Where payments other than money are given, the current market price of goods or services supplied by the supplier;

3. Where payments are unjustifiably low or no payments are made, the current market price of goods or services supplied by the supplier himself/herself;

4. Where the business is closed down, the current market price of inventory goods.

Enforcement Decree of the Value-Added Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15973, Dec. 31, 1998)

Article 26 (Scope of Goods, Services, etc. for Foreign Exchange Earnings)

(1) Goods or services for earning foreign currency referred to in Article 11 (1) 4 of the Act shall be as follows:

3. The end of the goods or services provided to the vessels, aircraft, or deep-sea fishing vessels sailing foreign countries;