Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Foreign intermediaries as the other company sharing commission under the education tax decree
Supreme Court, Feb. 12, 2026, 2025Du35074 (judgment)
Case name: 교육세부과처분취소[교육세 과세표준에 산입되지 않는 수수료에 관한 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where Company A, a domestic investment dealer and broker, received orders for listed financial investment products from overseas customers of its affiliated foreign companies, executed them on the Korea Exchange and paid half the brokerage commission abroad, must that amount be excluded from the education tax base as a commission distributable to another company under Article 4(2)(viii) of the Decree on the Enforcement of the former Education Tax Act, even though the recipient held no authorisation from the Financial Services Commission?
Holding
Yes, and the Supreme Court dismissed the head of the tax office's appeal. The term 'another company' in Article 4(2)(viii) is not confined to investment dealers and brokers authorised by the Financial Services Commission under the Capital Markets Act; it also covers foreign investment dealers and foreign investment brokers that may lawfully mediate, arrange or act as agent for trades in financial investment products abroad under foreign law. Since the affiliated companies performed the substantive mediation of domestic financial investment products by soliciting subscriptions and the sum paid to them was the share of the brokerage commission due to them rather than a price for support services, the court below was right to exclude it from Company A's education tax base.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
여기서 금융투자상품의 중개를 공동으로 수행하고 수수료를 분배받는 ‘다른 회사’는 반드시 자본시장법에 따라 금융위원회의 인가를 받은 투자매매업자·투자중개업자로 한정된다고 볼 수 없고, 금융위원회의 인가가 없더라도 국외에서 적법하게 금융투자상품의 매매를 중개·주선 또는 대리할 수 있는 외국 투자매매업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자매매업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)나 외국 투자중개업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자중개업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)까지 포함한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'another company' that jointly engages in the intermediation of financial investment products and receives an allocation of commissions cannot be regarded as necessarily limited to investment dealers or investment brokers authorized by the Financial Services Commission under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and, even without authorization from the Financial Services Commission, must be regarded as including foreign investment dealers (persons who engage in a business equivalent to investment dealing in a foreign country pursuant to foreign statutes) or foreign investment brokers (persons who engage in a business equivalent to investment brokerage in a foreign country pursuant to foreign statutes) who may lawfully mediate, arrange, or act as agent for the sale and purchase of financial investment products in a foreign country.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 금융투자상품의 중개를 공동으로 수행하고 수수료를 분배받는 ‘다른 회사’는 반드시 자본시장법에 따라 금융위원회의 인가를 받은 투자매매업자·투자중개업자로 한정된다고 볼 수 없고
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'another company' that jointly engages in the intermediation of financial investment products and receives an allocation of commissions cannot be regarded as necessarily limited to investment dealers or investment brokers authorized by the Financial Services Commission under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and
Factors
- 외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자매매업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자
- 외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자중개업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자
- 청약의 권유 등을 통해 국내 금융투자상품에 대한 실질적인 중개행위를 수행한 이상
- 관계 회사에 분배될 몫에 해당한다고 보아
Unofficial English translation
• persons who engage in a business equivalent to investment dealing in a foreign country pursuant to foreign statutes
• persons who engage in a business equivalent to investment brokerage in a foreign country pursuant to foreign statutes
• insofar as substantial brokerage acts with respect to domestic financial investment products have been performed through solicitation of offers and the like
• deeming that it constitutes a share to be allocated to the affiliate
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
금융위원회의 인가가 없더라도 국외에서 적법하게 금융투자상품의 매매를 중개·주선 또는 대리할 수 있는 외국 투자매매업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자매매업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)나 외국 투자중개업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자중개업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)까지 포함한다고 보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
even without authorization from the Financial Services Commission, must be regarded as including foreign investment dealers (persons who engage in a business equivalent to investment dealing in a foreign country pursuant to foreign statutes) or foreign investment brokers (persons who engage in a business equivalent to investment brokerage in a foreign country pursuant to foreign statutes) who may lawfully mediate, arrange, or act as agent for the sale and purchase of financial investment products in a foreign country.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How much activity by an affiliated foreign company amounts to the substantive mediation of a domestic financial investment product, so that the payment to it becomes a distributable share of commission?
A later decision defining the substantive mediation that an affiliated foreign company must perform, or any amendment to Article 4(2)(viii) of the Decree on the Enforcement of the former Education Tax Act, would call for this entry to be read again. The same would follow from a change to the treatment of foreign intermediaries in the Capital Markets Act or its Enforcement Decree.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The express inclusion of lawful foreign brokers may explain the primary reading's classification as a new standard, while the absence of an explicit account of prior precedents may explain the independent reading's inability to determine that relationship.
금융위원회의 인가가 없더라도 국외에서 적법하게 금융투자상품의 매매를 중개·주선 또는 대리할 수 있는 외국 투자매매업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자매매업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)나 외국 투자중개업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자중개업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)까지 포함한다고 보아야 한다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “How much activity by an affiliated foreign company amounts to the substantive mediation of a domestic financial investment product, so that the payment to it becomes a distributable share of commission?” vs Independent “When a foreign affiliate provides both brokerage and support services, how should its remuneration be apportioned for exclusion from the education tax base?”
The primary reading asks what activity qualifies as substantive brokerage, whereas the independent reading asks how to apportion remuneration when brokerage and support services are combined.
여기서 금융투자상품의 중개를 공동으로 수행하고 수수료를 분배받는 ‘다른 회사’는 반드시 자본시장법에 따라 금융위원회의 인가를 받은 투자매매업자·투자중개업자로 한정된다고 볼 수 없고, 금융위원회의 인가가 없더라도 국외에서 적법하게 금융투자상품의 매매를 중개·주선 또는 대리할 수 있는 외국 투자매매업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자매매업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)나 외국 투자중개업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자중개업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)까지 포함한다고 보아야 한다.Raw 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 21 August 2025 (2024Nu38461), held that where the affiliated companies performed the substantive mediation of domestic financial investment products by soliciting subscriptions and the like, they carried out that mediation jointly with Company A. It rejected the head of the tax office's contention that the sum Company A paid them was merely the price of support services provided by them, and held that it was the share of the commission due to them for mediating domestic financial investment products for overseas customers, so that under Article 4(2)(viii) of the Decree on the Enforcement of the former Education Tax Act it had to be excluded from Company A's education tax base.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It first held that the term 'another company' is not limited to investment dealers and brokers authorised by the Financial Services Commission, and also covers foreign investment dealers and foreign investment brokers that may lawfully mediate, arrange or act as agent for trades abroad, an interpretation consistent with the purpose and the 2009 enactment history of Article 4(2)(viii). Reading the appellate reasons against the provisions, that legal principle and the record, the Court held that the court below had neither departed from the rules of logic and experience nor misread the Article, and unanimously dismissed the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- An overseas recipient that is not a foreign investment dealer or foreign investment broker able lawfully to mediate, arrange or act as agent for trades in financial investment products abroad under foreign law.
- A payment made to an affiliate that did not perform the substantive mediation of domestic financial investment products, such as by soliciting subscriptions, so that no joint mediation was carried out.
- An amount that is only the price of support services provided by the affiliate rather than a share of the brokerage commission collected from the overseas customer.
Record verification notes
Establish the recipient's status under its own foreign law first, since the rule turns on its lawful ability to mediate abroad rather than on Korean authorisation. Then match the Referral Agreement of around 31 March 2003, under which half the commission was paid, with the payment records for each business year from the fourth period of business year 2015 to business year 2019, and test the tax office's support-service account against what the recipient actually did. Finally confirm which version of the Education Tax Act and its Decree governs those business years, as the Court applied the Act before the amendment of 31 December 2019 and the Decree before the amendment of 17 February 2021.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 교육세법 시행령 제4조 제2항 제8호에서 금융·보험업자가 금융투자상품의 중개를 공동으로 수행하고 수수료를 분배받는 ‘다른 회사’의 범위 [2] 글로벌 금융투자그룹에 속하여 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률에 따른 투자매매업, 투자중개업을 영위하고 있는 갑 주식회사가 그룹 내 해외 관계 회사로부터 한국거래소에 상장된 금융투자상품의 거래를 원하는 해외 고객의 주문을 전달받아 실행하고, 해당 해외 고객으로부터 받은 중개수수료의 절반을 관계 회사에 지급하며, 위 금액을 교육세 과세표준인 수익금액에서 제외되는 수수료에 해당한다고 보아 교육세 과세표준에서 제외하여 교육세를 신고·납부하였는데, 관할 세무서장이 위 금액은 교육세 과세표준에서 제외되지 않는다고 보아 교육세를 경정·고지한 사안에서, 위 금액은 교육세 과세표준에서 제외되어야 한다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The scope of 'another company' under Article 4 (2), subparagraph 8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Education Tax Act, which jointly engages in the intermediation of financial investment products with a financial or insurance business operator and receives an allocation of commissions [2] A case in which Company A, which belongs to a global financial investment group and engages in investment dealing and investment brokerage under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, received from its overseas affiliate within the group orders of overseas customers seeking to trade financial investment products listed on the Korea Exchange, executed those orders, and paid half of the brokerage commissions received from those overseas customers to the affiliate; Company A, deeming the above amount to constitute commissions excluded from the income amount, which is the tax base for the education tax, excluded the above amount from the tax base for the education tax and filed and paid the education tax; the competent district tax office director, deeming that the above amount is not excluded from the tax base for the education tax, corrected and assessed the education tax; in such a case, the holding of the court below, which found that the above amount should be excluded from the tax base for the education tax, is justifiable
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 교육세법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16839호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다)에 따르면, 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(이하 ‘자본시장법’이라 한다)에 따른 투자매매업자 및 투자중개업자와 같은 금융·보험업자는 교육세를 납부할 의무를 지고(제3조 제1호), 금융·보험업자가 납부하여야 할 교육세는 금융·보험업자의 수익금액을 과세표준으로 하며(제5조 제1항 제1호), 여기서 과세표준이 되는 수익금액이란 금융·보험업자가 수입한 이자, 배당금, 수수료, 보증료, 유가증권의 매각익·상환익, 보험료, 그 밖에 대통령령으로 정하는 금액을 말한다(제5조 제3항). 그리고 구 교육세법 제5조 제3항의 위임을 받은 구 교육세법 시행령(2021. 2. 17. 대통령령 제31455호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제2항 제8호에 따르면, 구 교육세법 [별표] 제12호의 금융·보험업자가 금융투자상품의 중개를 다른 회사와 공동으로 수행하고 자신의 수수료와 다른 회사에 분배될 수수료를 함께 수령한 경우 그 다른 회사에 분배될 수수료는 교육세의 과세표준이 되는 수익금액에 산입되지 않는다. 여기서 금융투자상품의 중개를 공동으로 수행하고 수수료를 분배받는 ‘다른 회사’는 반드시 자본시장법에 따라 금융위원회의 인가를 받은 투자매매업자·투자중개업자로 한정된다고 볼 수 없고, 금융위원회의 인가가 없더라도 국외에서 적법하게 금융투자상품의 매매를 중개·주선 또는 대리할 수 있는 외국 투자매매업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자매매업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)나 외국 투자중개업자(외국 법령에 따라 외국에서 투자중개업에 상당하는 영업을 하는 자)까지 포함한다고 보아야 한다. [2] 글로벌 금융투자그룹에 속하여 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2021. 4. 20. 법률 제18128호로 개정되기 전의 것)에 따른 투자매매업, 투자중개업을 영위하고 있는 갑 주식회사가 그룹 내 해외 관계 회사로부터 한국거래소에 상장된 금융투자상품의 거래를 원하는 해외 고객의 주문을 전달받아 실행하고, 해당 해외 고객으로부터 받은 중개수수료의 절반을 관계 회사에 지급하며, 위 금액을 교육세 과세표준인 수익금액에서 제외되는 수수료에 해당한다고 보아 교육세 과세표준에서 제외하여 교육세를 신고·납부하였는데, 관할 세무서장이 위 금액은 교육세 과세표준에서 제외되지 않는다고 보아 교육세를 경정·고지한 사안에서, 관계 회사가 청약의 권유 등을 통해 국내 금융투자상품에 대한 실질적인 중개행위를 수행한 이상 갑 회사와 공동으로 국내 금융투자상품을 중개한 것으로 보아야 한다고 전제한 후 갑 회사가 관계 회사에 지급한 위 금액이 단지 관계 회사로부터 제공받은 지원 서비스에 대한 대가일 뿐이라는 관할 세무서장의 주장을 배척한 다음 위 금액은 갑 회사가 관계 회사와 공동으로 해외 고객을 대상으로 국내 금융투자상품을 중개하고 받은 수수료 가운데 관계 회사에 분배될 몫에 해당한다고 보아, 구 교육세법 시행령(2021. 2. 17. 대통령령 제31455호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제2항 제8호에 따라 갑 회사에 대한 교육세 과세표준에서 제외되어야 한다고 본 원심판단이 정당하다고 한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 교육세법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16839호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1호 [별표] 제12호, 제5조 제1항 제1호, 제3항, 구 교육세법 시행령(2021. 2. 17. 대통령령 제31455호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제2항 제8호 / [2] 구 교육세법(2019. 12. 31. 법률 제16839호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조 제1호 [별표] 제12호, 제5조 제1항 제1호, 제3항, 구 교육세법 시행령(2021. 2. 17. 대통령령 제31455호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제4조 제2항 제8호, 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2021. 4. 20. 법률 제18128호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제6조, 제7조 제6항 제4호, 제8조, 제11조, 제12조 제1항, 제2항, 제444조 제1호, 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 시행령(2021. 3. 23. 대통령령 제31553호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제7조 제4항 제6호 (가)목, 제16조 제1항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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