The case holding that a corporate tax imposition disposition is lawful, which considers the price for the software introduced by a foreign corporation as the royalty income as the domestic source income under the Corporate Tax Act.

Article 55 (1) 9 (b) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4804 of Dec. 22, 1994) refers to the price for the use of confidential technical information about inventions, technology manufacturing methods, management methods, etc. that refer to the royalty under Article 55 (1) 9 (b) of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4804 of Dec. 22, 1994). Thus, if the introduction of the software is not simply imported products, but introduced know-how or its technology in light of the function and import price of the software introduced by a domestic corporation from a foreign corporation, the case holding that the corporate tax imposition disposition against the domestic corporation which is a withholding agent under Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act is lawful.

Article 55 (1) 9 (b) of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Nu212 Decided October 28, 1986, 86Nu225 Decided March 10, 1987, Supreme Court Decision 90Nu6088 Decided July 23, 1991

Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others

Head of Donggsan Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 93Gu6973 delivered on November 10, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff's automatic system equipment equipment (DEIG COUTTER ACT) software was 42,081,853 won, Japan's system or mixing company (BOY PRE RESIBUN) software was 152,207,592 won, and the amount paid to each of the above corporations was 152,207,592 won, since it constitutes usage fee income under Article 55 (1) 9 (b) of the Corporate Tax Act, Article 12 (3) of the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty, Article 11 of the Korea-Japan Tax Treaty, and Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Act, and that the court below's determination of usage fee under the Corporate Tax Act was legitimate for the plaintiff's introduction of technical information, not for the purpose of misunderstanding the legal principles on usage fee under the Corporate Tax Act, but for each of the above technology, method of technical introduction and non-disclosure.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)