Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Trademark royalty non-payment as an artificial transaction
Supreme Court, June 1, 2023, 2021Du30679 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 법인세부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a trademark owner allows affiliated companies to use its marks without charging a royalty, is that alone an abnormal transaction devoid of economic rationality that may be denied under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act, and how is that to be judged?
Holding
No, it does not. Whether the absence of a royalty is economically rational depends on the legal and contractual basis for the trademark use, the relationship between the parties, the capital and effort each of them put into developing, maintaining and exploiting the trademark, how far their functions contributed to earning income through it, general consumers' awareness of the mark and all the surrounding circumstances, weighed together. The Supreme Court found no error in the appellate conclusion that the plaintiff's receipt of no separate royalty was not such an abnormal transaction, and dismissed the appeal.
Points at issue, verbatim
갑 회사가 계열회사로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않은 것이 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 거래행위로서 부당행위계산 부인의 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case in which the court below's decision affirming that Company A's failure to receive trademark royalties from its affiliated companies did not constitute an abnormal transaction act lacking economic rationality and thus did not fall within the scope of the disavowal of the calculation of unfair acts, is affirmed
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
경제적 합리성의 유무에 대한 판단은 거래행위의 여러 사정을 구체적으로 고려하여
Unofficial English translation
the determination as to the presence or absence of economic rationality must be made by specifically taking into account the various circumstances of the transaction act
Factors
- 구 법인세법 제52조에서 정한 부당행위계산 부인의 의미 및 이때 경제적 합리성의 유무를 판단하는 방법
- 상표권자가 상표 사용자로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않았다는 이유만으로 곧바로 그 행위가 경제적 합리성을 결여하였다고 단정할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 상표권자가 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않은 행위가 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 것인지 판단하는 방법
- 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 거래행위로서 부당행위계산 부인의 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• The meaning of the disavowal of the calculation of unfair acts provided in Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act and the method of determining the presence or absence of economic rationality on that occasion
• Whether it can be conclusively asserted, merely on the ground that a trademark owner has not received trademark royalties from the trademark user, that the act forthwith lacks economic rationality (negative)
• The method of determining whether an act by which a trademark owner has not received trademark royalties is an abnormal one lacking economic rationality
• A case affirming the court below's decision that it did not constitute an abnormal transaction act lacking economic rationality and thus did not fall within the scope of the disavowal of the calculation of unfair acts
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2019. 5. 30. 선고 2016두54213 판결(공2019하, 1327)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2016Du54213 decided May 30, 2019 (Gong 2019 Ha, 1327)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2019. 5. 30. 선고 2016두54213 판결(공2019하, 1327), 대법원 2023. 5. 18. 선고 2018두33005 판결(공2023하, 1089)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a royalty for the use of a registered mark is found to be due, by what method is its market price determined for the denial under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act?
A later decision that actually decides how the market price of a trademark royalty is calculated would be needed before relying on this entry on that point. Any amendment to Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act or Article 88(1) of its Enforcement Decree, or a change in the trademark royalty arrangements between affiliates, would call for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “구 법인세법 제52조에서 정한 부당행위계산 부인의 의미 및 이때 경제적 합리성의 유무를 판단하는 방법 / 상표권자가 상표 사용자로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않았다는 이유만으로 곧바로 그 행위가 경제적 합리성을 결여하였다고 단정할 수 있는지 여부(소극) / 상표권자가 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않은 행위가 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 것인지 판단하는 방법 / 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 거래행위로서 부당행위계산 부인의 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례” vs Independent “상표권자가 상표 사용자로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않았다는 이유 / 계열회사에 상표를 사용하도록 하면서 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않자 / 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 거래행위”
The primary reading lists the legal standard for judging rationality (contract basis, contributions, consumer awareness), while the independent reading lists case facts (reason for non-payment, affiliate relation, abnormal transaction), so the central factors differ.
상표권자가 상표 사용자로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않았다는 이유Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 27 November 2020 (2019Nu31633), held on the first trademark that Korea Lotteeria directly bore the cost of managing the mark in its business, while the plaintiff neither used the mark in business nor made efforts to raise its value after registration, so that the mark's economic value was formed mostly by Korea Lotteeria. On the second trademark it held that the management fees the plaintiff received from the duty-free affiliates under the management service agreements already included the trademark royalty, and concluded that receiving no separate payment was not an abnormal transaction falling under the denial rule.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the mere fact that no royalty was received cannot by itself show a lack of economic rationality, and that the appellate weighing of the parties' functions, capital and efforts was sound on the record. It also accepted the finding that the management fees covered the royalty on the second trademark, and held that the lower court's remark on how the market price would be calculated was only hypothetical and supplementary, so it could not affect the outcome.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the trademark owner itself used the mark in business or made efforts to raise its value, so that the mark's economic value cannot be said to have been formed mostly by the user company.
- A case in which the management fees received under a management service agreement are shown not to include any amount for the use of the trademark.
- A transaction between parties who are not in a special relationship within Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act, since the denial rule addresses dealings with related parties.
Record verification notes
Set out the special relationship between the plaintiff and each user company, and the legal and contractual basis on which each used the marks, before relying on this decision. Gather what each party actually did for the development, maintenance and protection of each mark and what it spent, and check how far the management fees are attributable to the trademark. Finally, note that the market-price point was left undecided, so it is not authority on how a royalty is to be valued.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 법인세법 제52조에서 정한 부당행위계산 부인의 의미 및 이때 경제적 합리성의 유무를 판단하는 방법 / 상표권자가 상표 사용자로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않았다는 이유만으로 곧바로 그 행위가 경제적 합리성을 결여하였다고 단정할 수 있는지 여부(소극) 및 상표권자가 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않은 행위가 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 것인지 판단하는 방법 [2] 상표권자인 갑 주식회사가 계열회사에 상표를 사용하도록 하면서 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않자, 관할 세무서장이 이를 구 법인세법 제52조의 부당행위계산 부인 대상에 해당한다고 보아 법인세를 부과한 사안에서, 갑 회사가 계열회사로부터 상표권 사용료를 지급받지 않은 것이 경제적 합리성을 결여한 비정상적인 거래행위로서 부당행위계산 부인의 대상에 해당하지 않는다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The meaning of the disavowal of the calculation of unfair acts provided in Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act and the method of determining the presence or absence of economic rationality on that occasion / Whether it can be conclusively asserted, merely on the ground that a trademark owner has not received trademark royalties from the trademark user, that the act forthwith lacks economic rationality (negative), and the method of determining whether an act by which a trademark owner has not received trademark royalties is an abnormal one lacking economic rationality [2] A case in which, where the trademark owner, Company A, allowed its affiliated companies to use its trademark without receiving trademark royalties, the head of the competent tax office regarded this as falling within the scope of the disavowal of the calculation of unfair acts under Article 52 of the former Corporate Tax Act and imposed corporate tax, the court below's decision affirming that Company A's failure to receive trademark royalties from its affiliated companies did not constitute an abnormal transaction act lacking economic rationality and thus did not fall within the scope of the disavowal of the calculation of unfair acts, is affirmed
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 법인세법(2018. 12. 24. 법률 제16008호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제52조, 구 법인세법 시행령(2013. 2. 15. 대통령령 제24357호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제88조 제1항, 구 상표법(2011. 12. 2. 법률 제11113호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제2조 제1항 제1호, 제6호(현행 제2조 제1항 제11호 참조), 구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1항 제7호(현행 제2조 제1항 제11호 참조) [2] 구 법인세법(2018. 12. 24. 법률 제16008호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제52조, 구 법인세법 시행령(2013. 2. 15. 대통령령 제24357호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제88조 제1항, 제89조, 구 상표법(2011. 12. 2. 법률 제11113호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제2조 제1항 제1호, 제6호(현행 제2조 제1항 제11호 참조), 구 상표법(2016. 2. 29. 법률 제14033호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1항 제7호(현행 제2조 제1항 제11호 참조)
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger