2012Nu4625 Revocation of imposition of acquisition tax, etc.

BUC

Representative Director Doing

Attorney OOO, OO, OO

Attorney Kim Jae-soo, ○○, ○○

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Law Firm ○○○○

Attorney OOO, OO

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm OOO

[Defendant-Appellant]

Litigation performer ○○○

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2007Guhap5349 decided November 6, 2007

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Nu32176 Decided June 17, 2008

Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13293 Decided February 9, 2012

August 21, 2012

September 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Acquisition tax imposed on the plaintiff on March 29, 2006 by the defendant 15, 693, 358, 550 won and special rural development tax for the plaintiff

1. Each disposition of imposition of KRW 1,305, 702, and 610 shall be revoked.

1. Deemed acquisition tax, etc.;

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including numbers)

In the statement, the whole purport of the pleading is recognized.

O Dogggre Investment Copo Corporation (Realty) Priv Rate d. (hereinafter referred to as “ Doggggre”) is Washington.

가포르 정부가 자산을 투자 · 관리할 목적으로 설립한 싱가포르 법인인 ' ■■■ ( Inc . ) ' 가

A company with a 100% share, and the plaintiff was established by the investment of the full amount of Magsan on March 21, 1994.

The number of shares issued as a corporation is KRW 500 million, capital is approximately KRW 300 billion.

○ The Plaintiff is invested by 100% on December 10, 2004 in accordance with the Singapore Company Act with the investment of 100% on December 10, 204, △△△△△. (hereinafter “△△△”).

△△ ' 이라고 한다 ) 와 ' ▲▲▲ Ltd . ( 이하 ' ▲▲▲ ' 라 하고 , ' △△△ ' 과 ' ▲▲▲ ' 를 ' 이 사건

The subsidiaries established ‘the subsidiaries'.

The △△△△△ shall be an emergency from the △△△○, a Belgium-based corporation, on December 28, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the △△△○○○○○○○).

장법인인 주식회사 ▼▼▼ ( 이하 ' ▼▼▼ ' 라고 한다 ) 의 발행주식 총수의 약 50 . 01 % 를 취

득하였고 , ▲▲▲는 ▼▼▼의 발행주식 총수의 약 49 . 99 % 를 취득하였다 ( 이하 이 사건

The aggregate of the shares acquired by subsidiaries is called ‘the shares of this case'.

○피고는 2006 . 3 . 29 . 원고의 자회사인 △△△과 ▲▲▲가 이른바 명목회사 ( paper

company ) 에 불과하고 , △△△과 ▲▲▲가 위와 같이 ▼▼▼의 주식을 취득함으로써

실질적으로는 원고가 ▼▼▼의 과점주주가 되어 ▼▼▼ 소유의 부동산 및 차량 등 ( 이

H. The term "real estate, etc. of this case" is deemed to have been acquired, and on December 28, 2004, real estate, etc.

The tax base of KRW 593, 501, 193, and 859, which is the book value, shall be the Plaintiff, and the Local Tax Act (hereinafter “Local Tax Act”) shall be the Local Tax Act (hereinafter “Local Tax Act”).

12. Point in accordance with Article 105(6)1 of the Act on 31. 31 (amended by Act No. 7843, hereinafter the same)

Acquisition tax on deemed acquisition by shareholders 15, 693, 358, 550 won and special rural development tax on 1,305, 702, 610 won

It was imposed (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

2. The acquirer of the instant real estate, etc.

A. The parties’ assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Whether a shareholder falls under an oligopolistic shareholder prescribed in Article 105 (6) of the Local Tax Act or not a shareholder is an oligopolistic shareholder

Article 22 subparagraph 2-3 of the Local Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Local Tax Act (Presidential Decree No. 31 December 31, 2005)

The decision should be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 6(1)4 of the Act.

다 . 그런데 이 사건 주식은 이 사건 자회사들이 소유하고 있어 이들이 ▼▼▼의 주주

The plaintiff is merely holding the shares of this case, and the plaintiff does not hold the shares of this case, so the plaintiff is an oligopolistic shareholder.

되기 위한 실질적인 요건은 물론 주식소유의 형식적인 요건조차 충족하지 못하여 ▼▼

▼의 과점주주에 해당하지 아니한다 .

An act of tax avoidance according to the principle of substantial taxation notwithstanding the legal form of transactions by the parties.

D. In order to deny the validity of the calculation of the act, the act is individually and separately governed by the law under the principle of no taxation without law.

To establish specific rules of denial, for risk diversification and efficient recovery of investment

A corporation is incorporated and has an entity under the corporate law, and the subsidiary of this case is solely subject to tax

피를 위하여 설립된 명목회사에 불과하다고 하면서 원고를 ▼▼▼의 과점주주로 보아

The defendant's disposition of this case is individual and specific in legal form chosen by the plaintiff.

The principle of no taxation without law is denied as it is beyond the limit of the substance over form principle.

in violation of this section.

The Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs with respect to authoritative interpretation of tax authorities and inquiries of the subsidiaries of this case

Contrary to the reply of the officer, it violates the principle of good faith.

따라서 원고가 ▼▼▼의 과점주주에 해당한다는 전제하에 한 이 사건 처분은 어느 모

of this state is illegal.

(2) The defendant's assertion

The subsidiaries of this case are corporations in the form of corporation, but this is for tax avoidance.

in fact, the plaintiff in the hinterland is not merely taking the form of this section, and the plaintiff in the hinterland is in fact subject to this section.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition of this case in light of the substance over form principle, etc. is identical to the acquisition of dry shares.

Law is legitimate.

(b) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not in dispute between the parties, or evidence of Gap 4 to 9, and evidence of Eul 1 to 26

(including the number of each chapter) and the testimony of the witness of the first instance trial by the witness of the first instance court, together with the purport of the entire pleadings.

shall be recognized by the court.

[1]

○주식회사 ☆☆☆ ( 이하 ' ☆☆☆ ' 이라고 한다 ) 은 1996 . 1 . 9 . 서울 서초구 ★★★을 본

Establishment with the purpose of plastic production, manufacture and sale, etc. of raw content parts at the location of points and with the purpose of manufacturing and selling plastic products;

A. On January 11, 1996, the business was commenced after business registration and was closed three months after the business was closed.

and after the closure of the business, it was in the Dormant Corporation.

O▽▽▽는 2001 . 6 . 15 . ☆☆☆의 주식을 100 % 인수한 다음 그 명칭을 ▼▼▼로 변경

In addition, all executives and target businesses, such as the representative director, were changed.

O▼▼▼는 2001 . 6 . 18 . 서울 강남구 ◁◁◁ 토지를 취득한 후 같은 해 6 . 21 . 소유권

이전등기를 마쳤고 , 같은 해 7 . 9 . 위 토지 위에 건축 중이던 건물 ( ▼▼▼ 빌딩 ) 의 건축

주 명의를 ◀◀◀ 주식회사에서 ▼▼▼로 변경한 다음 건축물의 사용승인을 받은 후

This was acquired.

On December 28, 2004, the following, the process for which the instant subsidiaries acquired the instant shares from the ▽▽▽△△△.

as seen earlier.

○ On the other hand, at the time of the acquisition of the instant shares, representatives of the instant subsidiaries in the share transfer contract

여 이 사건 자회사들의 임원이 아닌 □□□ 소속 ▷▷▷ ( ▷▷▷ ) 가 서명하였다 .

[2]

○ The status of the subsidiaries of this case is as listed below.

* OOO ( OOO Peng ) , OOO ( OOO Mien ) 은 원고의 감사 , ◎◎◎◎◎◎ ) 는 원고의 이사 등 임원이

A person shall be appointed.

(c)

* * ▼▼▼의 부채 600 , 460 , 575 , 897원을 승계하였다 .

[3]

○ The Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs on August 23, 1999: “The State of an unlisted corporation by a subsidiary in which the parent company has invested 10%”

in the case of the State, the parent company is not a shareholder of the non-listed corporation, and the subsidiary company is a special officer.

No one shall be liable to pay acquisition tax as an oligopolistic shareholder because there is no limit to this.

(C) 13407 - 1052).

○ Based on the share ownership relationship of the subsidiaries of this case relating to the acquisition of the shares of this case

사 명칭을 익명처리한 개인 ( ▶▶▶ , 변호사 ♤♤♤ ) 명의의 질의에 대하여 행정자치부

The Minister shall, prior to the acquisition of the shares of this case, not later than November 24, 2004, 2006 after the acquisition of the shares of this case.

2. 23. He sent a reply to the same purport as each of the above authoritative interpretations (Evidence A No. 4 and 5).

C. Interpretation of laws and regulations on deemed acquisition tax

[1]

(1) Article 105(6) of the Local Tax Act, which was in force at the time of the acquisition of the instant shares, is a State of a corporation

If a person becomes an oligopolistic stockholder by acquiring the class or shares, that oligopolistic stockholder shall be a vice-Dong of the corporation concerned.

Section 22 subparag. 2 of the △△△ shall be deemed to have acquired san, etc., and Article 22 subparag. 2 of the △△△

or one partner with limited liability and his relatives or other persons having such special relation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree;

The total amount of stocks owned or invested or the total amount of investment made by the corporation concerned.

The term "persons who are at least 51/100" means persons who are at least 51/100, and the Local Tax Act delegated by △△△.

Article 6 (1) of the Enforcement Decree shall not apply to the shareholders or one partner with limited liability under subparagraph 12, relatives or other special officers.

(1) If a shareholder or partner with limited liability is a corporation, the owner of the corporation.

Corporations whose number of meals, etc. exceeds 50/100 of the total number of outstanding stocks and the number of relevant stocks, etc.

A corporation or an individual with at least 50/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares is defined as "a corporation or individual."

(2) According to the above provisions, in principle, deemed acquisition tax stipulated in Article 105(6) of the Local Tax Act.

An oligopolistic stockholder who is liable for tax payment means an oligopolistic stockholder as provided in Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the same Act.

As such, the formal requirements should be met (Supreme Court Decision 2006Du206 Decided October 23, 2008).

See, 19501, et al.)

[2]

(1) However, on the other hand, the Framework Act on National Taxes (Law No. 31 December 31, 2007) that was enforced at the time of the acquisition of the shares of this case.

Article 14 of the Act prior to its amendment by the rate of 8830; hereinafter the same shall apply) is subject to taxation in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

income, profit, property, act or transaction under the name of the title, and the person who actually belongs thereto;

(1) If there is a separate provision, the actual owner shall be the person to whom the tax belongs and shall be the person to whom the tax

The provisions of paragraph (2) concerning the calculation of the tax base of the △△△, and the provisions of the tax law concerning the income, profits, property, and conduct

Notwithstanding the name or form of the transaction or the name or form of the transaction, it shall apply in accordance with the substance.

5)

(2) The principle of substantial taxation that the above provision is declared is the principle of equality, which is the basic ideology under the Constitution.

corporation, as a practical principle to realize tax law relations, with a view to avoiding tax burden.

If any unreasonable form or appearance, which is different from the substance, is taken with respect to the facts of taxation requirements;

tax imposed at a place with a capacity to pay tax depending on the substance, regardless of its form or appearance;

State in order to realize tax justice by regulating tax avoidance activities and enhancing the equity of taxation;

The object is mutually complementary and indivisible with the principle of no taxation without law.

(3) The substance prescribed by Article 14(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes among the principle of substantial taxation.

The principle of taxation on the person to whom the property belongs shall be the person to whom such income, profit, property, transaction, etc. belongs;

a person to whom it substantially belongs, on the ground of its form or appearance, if any;

A person whose nominal owner is not a person liable for tax payment, but a person substantially belonging thereto.

the local tax law under section 82(6) of the Local Tax Act. Such principle shall be the local tax law.

applicable mutatis mutandis to the relationship.

(4) In applying Article 105(6)(7) of the Local Tax Act, the ownership of the shares or equity in question shall be

The nominal owner who has no ability to control and manage the nominal owner and is in substance by means of control, etc. over the nominal owner.

person who controls and manages it in a separate manner, and the disparity between such name and substance is

shares or equity interest in which such shares or equity interest is substantially derived from the purpose of avoiding the application of

It is deemed that it belongs to a person who controls and manages it, and the person shall be the person liable for tax payment.

C. Whether it constitutes such a case is the process and purpose of acquisition of the shares or equity in question, and the acquisitor.

the source, the management and disposition process, the ability of the person to whom the title belongs, and the control relationship with such person.

Supreme Court Decision 2008Du208 Decided January 19, 2012

8499 See en banc Decision 8499

D. Determination

In full view of the above facts of recognition and relevant legal principles, the parties' arguments are examined as follows.

(1) Only the legal form in which the instant subsidiaries acquired and held the instant shares

On the other hand, the subsidiary company of this case did not hold all the shares of this case.

취득한 이 사건 주식은 각각 ▼▼▼의 발행주식 총수의 약 50 . 01 % 와 49 . 99 % 로서 그

51 per cent or more of the shares holding ratio does not meet the requirements applicable to an oligopolistic stockholder

In the world, both the Plaintiff and the instant subsidiaries are deemed acquisition tax provided by Article 105(6) of the Local Tax Act.

the formal application requirements are causing damage.

(2) However, the subsidiary company of this case is a business office other than the acquisition and disposal of the shares of this case.

There is no entry, and the amount of capital is about 1,200 won, respectively, and contact information, website, employees, etc. are all;

There is no address, and three of the officers are the same as the plaintiff, and three of the officers are concurrently serving as the plaintiff's officers.

F. The subsidiaries of this case are not equipped with human or material facilities and have independent intention.

1. The shares of this case are determined or deemed not capable of performing the purpose of business, and solely △△

The subsidiaries of this case are deemed to have been established for acquisition, and the subsidiaries of this case shall purchase the shares of this case.

money directly borrowed from the plaintiff or borrowed from another place under the plaintiff's payment guarantee.

In substance, the acquisition fund of the instant shares was provided by the Plaintiff, and the parent company of the Plaintiff.

of this case on behalf of the subsidiary company by a person who is employed by the

All of the acquisition, holding, and disposal of shares in this case seems to have been in effect by the plaintiff.

In the end, the Plaintiff did not directly acquire the shares of this case and did not directly acquire the shares of this case.

An oligopolistic stockholder who acquires the shares of this case by means of distributed shares in his name, from the beginning;

The Plaintiff’s series of measures as above are organized to meet the requirements and are solely subject to local tax law.

It is inevitable to view that it is intended to avoid acquisition tax liability under Article 105 (6) of the Act.

(c)

(3) As to this, the Plaintiff intended to directly purchase the instant real estate at △△, but the Plaintiff sought to sell the instant real estate at △△.

Tax burdens on gains from the direct transfer of real estate, or dividend income, etc. accruing therefrom;

The instant real estate is inevitably subject to the demand of the ▽▽▽△△△ party, the transferor of the instant shares, seeking not to seek the instant real estate.

소유하고 있는 ▼▼▼의 발행주식인 이 사건 주식을 양수하게 된 점 , △ 외국 법인이 발

(1) If shares are acquired, such shares shall be subject to the deemed acquisition tax under Article 105 (6) of the Local Tax Act.

니하므로 원고로서는 벨기에에서 발행한 ▽▽▽ ( ▼▼▼ 발행주식 총수의 100 % 보유자 ) 의

by acquiring shares of this case without any tax burden and actually acquiring ownership of the real estate of this case

without such method, the subsidiaries of this case established in Singapore did not select the above method.

In light of the fact that the shares of this case were acquired through B, there is a purpose of tax avoidance to the Plaintiff.

The author argues that it is not possible to regard it.

그러나 , 원고가 위 주장과 같이 ▽▽▽ 측의 요구로 부득이하게 ▼▼▼의 발행주식인 이

The text of the deemed acquisition tax provided for in subparagraph 6 of Article 105 of the Local Tax Act, if the shares of this case were acquired;

No. 7) No. 300,000 No. 300,000 No. 310

However, it can be said that the Plaintiff did not acquire the issued shares at his option.

in such circumstances as long as the subsidiaries of this case have acquired the shares of this case, the first

As seen above, the plaintiff's purpose of tax avoidance cannot be denied. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(4) More than 4) The purpose of the establishment of the instant subsidiaries and the Plaintiff and the instant subsidiaries

Comprehensively taking into account the parent-subsidiary relationship and the degree of such control, the details and purpose of acquiring the shares of this case

In this regard, the Plaintiff’s holding of the shares of this case through full control over the subsidiaries of this case

Article 22(2) of the Local Tax Act, in the form of the Plaintiff, has qualitative control and management.

even if it does not constitute an oligopolistic shareholder as provided in section 105(6)(8) of this title, the above fact-finding officer

In applying the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1)9 of the Framework Act on National Taxes to the fraternity, the Plaintiff’s instant case

주식의 실질적인 귀속자로서 「 지방세법 」 제105조 제6항을 적용함에 있어서 ▼▼▼의

Since the same legal effect as that of an oligopolistic shareholder has been created, the obligation to pay acquisition tax under the above provision shall be imposed.

The above interpretation according to the application of the principle of substantial taxation to △△ is the acquisition tax.

other areas, such as the Civil Code, the Commercial Code, etc., have the meaning only in tax and legal relations.

It does not affect the attribution of the obligation (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du2008 Decided January 19, 2012).

See Decision 8499, 10)

(5) In addition, the authoritative interpretation and inquiry of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs are premised on the simple holding ratio of shares.

agency may abuse the provisions of deemed acquisition tax under the Local Tax Act for the purpose of tax avoidance.

It is difficult to regard it as an interpretation or reply, and the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs also replys to an inquiry.

'Really falling under an oligopolistic stockholder under Article 105 (6) of the Local Tax Act, the person who has the authority to impose taxes shall be the head of the relationship.

Department A reserves the final statement of opinion as the "matters to be determined after investigating the facts, etc." (A)

No. 4-1, etc.) The tax authority having such authoritative interpretation and inquiry of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs

It cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff expressed a public opinion that it would not impose tax on the Plaintiff, and otherwise,

Since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's disposition of this case under Article 15 (11) of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Nor may be deemed contrary to the principle of good faith.

3. Additional tax:

A. The plaintiff's assertion

설령 원고가 실질과세의 원칙에 따라 「 지방세법 」 제105조 제6항에 의한 ▼▼▼의 과

Even if it is a point shareholder, it is different from the legal assessment in accordance with the form and substance.

Inasmuch as the meaning of the interpretation of the tax-related law is merely a suspicion, the Plaintiff is liable to pay tax at the time of taxation.

of the penalty tax imposed in question is not directly related to the propriety of the assessment of the penalty tax imposed in question; and

J. This is based on the existing strict interpretation of the above provision by the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, and the plaintiff

In accordance with the assertion, there are a number of lower courts cases, and the authoritative interpretation and quality of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs

In light of the fact that it could not be assumed that the plaintiff is liable to pay acquisition tax by the Council's letter.

In view of the fact that the Plaintiff is a legitimate party to the Plaintiff’s violation of the obligation to report and pay acquisition tax on the instant real estate, etc.

(2) If there are circumstances under which it is reasonable to expect the Plaintiff to perform the duty; or

As such, the penalty of this case’s disposition is unlawful.

B. Determination

(1) For the purpose of facilitating the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, additional tax under tax law

Where a taxpayer violates all kinds of obligations, such as reporting and tax payment, as provided for in the Act without justifiable grounds;

Administrative sanctions imposed as prescribed by each tax-related Act, upon which a taxpayer has become aware of his/her obligations.

circumstances or circumstances in which it is reasonable to present it as it may not be unreasonable to do so.

If it is unreasonable to expect the party to perform the obligation, or if there is any other reason that it is unreasonable to expect the party to do so

If there is a justifiable reason that cannot be caused by negligence, the imposition may be exempted (Supreme Court).

On January 10, 2003, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du7886, Jan. 10, 2003). The taxpayer’s intentional or negligent act is not considered.

and the land of the law can not be seen as a legitimate ground (Supreme Court of Korea).

See Supreme Court Decision 98Du16705 delivered on September 17, 1999

(2) The circumstances in question are as follows, taking into account the above facts of recognition, the evidence mentioned above, and the relevant legal principles.

for the purposes of this section.

■ 원고는 ▼▼▼ 발행주식의 인수 , 보유 및 처분만을 목적으로 할 뿐 이와 독립된 활

The Dong does not at all, and it is a nominal company with equity capital of 1,200 won, respectively.

Tax burden, such as deemed acquisition tax under Article 105 (6) 12 of the Local Tax Act, which has been established by subsidiaries;

까지 회피하기 위하여 의도적으로 이 사건 자회사들로 하여금 각각 ▼▼▼ 발행주식총

approximately 50.01%, approximately 49.9%, and approximately 22.2 Item 13 of Article 22 of the Local Tax Act by acquiring the volume

At least 51/100 of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, which are requirements for oligopolistic shareholders, were required to be less than 51/10.

m. In fact, the plaintiff in the process is premised on the ratio of stock ownership by using personal name.

The Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs may ask questions and obtain authoritative interpretation or reply corresponding to the assertion.

c. If the circumstances are as above, the Plaintiff’s exercise of full control over the subsidiaries of this case

The purpose of this tax avoidance is to substantially control and manage the shares of this case;

section 22 subparagraph 2 of the Local Tax Act and Article 105 (6) of the Local Tax Act by intentionally taking a series of measures

The first tax meeting due to the disposition of this case by the defendant, after failing to meet the requirements of the shareholder;

It seems that the objective of the crime is not achieved, and it also seems that the power of the Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs is not fulfilled.

tin and inquiry reply cannot be viewed as a case where there is a tax avoidance purpose; and

The Minister of Government Administration and Home Affairs gives authoritative interpretation or inquiry as to "acquisition of the Plaintiff's shares in this case"

It is difficult to see as it is.

(3) If so, the plaintiff's administration consistent with the above argument in the course of attempt for tax avoidance.

Cases that have obtained authoritative interpretation or reply from the officer of the autonomous department or that conform to the plaintiff's assertion; or

Even if there was a statutory interpretation, the plaintiff who has the purpose of tax avoidance on the obviously deemed acquisition tax.

A. The shares of this case, regardless of the formal title of holding or holding ratio of the shares of this case

under the principle of substantial taxation under Article 14(1)14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes (Article 14(1)14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes)

방세법 」 제105조 제6항을 적용함에 있어서 ▼▼▼의 과점주주인 것과 같은 법적 효과

The obligation to pay acquisition tax on the real estate, etc. of this case is due to the occurrence of such liability.

In the event that there were circumstances in which the Plaintiff was unaware and was able to give her knowledge to the party, or that the Plaintiff was

It is not possible to expect the performance of obligation to pay acquisition tax under Article 105 (6) of the Tax Act.

(2).

Therefore, acquisition tax under Article 105 (6) of the Local Tax Act on the real estate of this case by the plaintiff

There is a justifiable reason for not being able to prove that the Plaintiff breached its duty to pay taxes.

Since it is difficult to see that the part of the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

F. The judgment of the first instance court is justified in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Maximum Order

Judges Lee In-bok

1) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 1](1).

2) Article 5(1)6 of the Act on Special Rural Development Tax and relevant provisions are as stated in [Attachment 2].

3) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 1].

4) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 1].

5) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 3].

6) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 1].

7) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 1](1).

8) The corresponding provisions are as shown in [Attachment 1].

19) The corresponding provisions are as listed in [Attachment 3].

10) In such sense, the subsidiaries of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, are in accordance with the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

applicable to the Act, the Real Estate Investment Company Act, and the Ship Investment Company Act (Specis Ppose ny, abbreviated SPC).

The circumstances that the subsidiaries are legally engaged (in fact evidence that the subsidiaries of this case meet the requirements of the above special law)

In applying Article 105(6) of the Local Tax Act and the deemed acquisition tax under Article 105(6) of the Local Tax Act, the subsidiaries of this case were established for the purpose of tax avoidance.

It cannot be viewed that it is contradictory to each other.

11) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 3].

12) The relevant provisions are as listed in [Attachment 1](1).

13) The corresponding provision is as set out in [Attachment 1] (“Attachment 1”).

14) The corresponding provisions are as listed in [Attachment 3].

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.