Supreme Court

Principal text.

This appeal is dismissed.

The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the appellant.

Reason

Reasons for the petition for acceptance of the final appeal (excluding No. 6) by the appellate counsel, Hisashi Tateuchi, et al. The name of the corporation is hereafter indicated by the abbreviation shown in the Annexed Table.

1. The appellant is a company that was incorporated in the year ended 31 December 2008 (from 7 October 2008 to 31 March 2008). 1 The appellant is a company incorporated in the State party for the fiscal year ended 31 December 2008 and the fiscal year ended 31 December 2009. The name of the respondent is abbreviated as follows: 1. The same applies to subsequent fiscal years. The same applies to subsequent financial years.) The company has been subject to the same taxation system for the fiscal years ended 31 December 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the fiscal years in question') through 31 December 2012. In the corporate tax returns for the fiscal years from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "fiscal years in question"), the company paid interest on a loan (hereinafter referred to as the "loan") from UMIF, which belongs to the same corporate group as the appellant. The amount of interest paid (hereinafter referred to as 'the interest paid') in respect of the The director of the Azabu Tax Office applied Article 132(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the denial of acts or calculations by related companies, etc., and denied the acts that caused the above inclusion in deductible expenses and included the amount of the appellant's income in deductible expenses.  The amount of interest to be paid was added to the amount of income of the appellant for each of the fiscal years in question (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "fiscal years in question"). The case is based on a decision by the appellant that it was not in the best interests of the taxpayers to file a tax return.

This case is about the appellant seeking the annulment of each of the Dispositions (the portion exceeding the declared amount for each of the aforementioned corrective dispositions), and the fact that the borrowing in this case is in accordance with Article 132(1) of the Corporation Tax Act, which states: 'If this is accepted, the burden of corporation tax shall be borne by the appellant. The dispute is whether the borrowing in question falls within the scope of Article 132(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, which states that "the acceptance of the borrowing would result in an unreasonable decrease in the corporate tax burden".

2 A summary of the facts and other matters lawfully determined by the original court is as follows.

 (1) Outline of the Appellant and the corporate group to which it belongs

(a) The Respondent is a limited liability company established on 7 October 2008 for the purpose of conducting business related to music (hereinafter referred to as the "music business"). (2) The Appellant is a limited liability company established on 7 October 2008 for the purpose of carrying on a business related to music (the "Music Business"), in which Vivendi, a French corporation, directly or indirectly holds all shares or investments ("all equity"). The corporate group (the "Corporate Group") consists of legal entities in which Vivendi, a French legal entity, directly or indirectly holds all shares or investments ("All Shares"). The division in charge of the music business (hereinafter referred to as the "Music Division", and the legal entities comprising it are collectively referred to as the "Music Division Legal Entities") of the The respondent is a member of the Corporate Tax Division. The appellant is a domestic corporation within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Corporation Tax Act and a related company within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the same Act prior to its amendment by Act No. 9 of 2015. The appellant is a domestic corporation within the meaning of Article 2(3) of the Corporate Tax Act and a related company within the meaning of Article 1(0) of the same Act before its amendment by Law No. 9 of 2015.

(b) The corporate group in question is a group of companies that, in addition to the music business, also conducts business related to television, film and other media. The legal entities listed in the Annex (excluding Vivendi) were all part of the Music Sector, and the main capital relations of the Music Sector corporations prior to September 2008 are as set out in Appendix 5 of the First Trial Decision. The summary of the capital relationships, etc. of the domestic corporations in this category were as follows

(a) The domestic corporations that are the music sector corporations in question (hereinafter referred to as the "Japanese affiliates"). The UMKK, UMPKK, the MGBKK and V2J were.

(b) UMKK is wholly owned by UMTC, a Dutch corporation. held by UMTC, all of whose interests were indirectly held by Polygram, a Dutch company. In addition, the UMPKK is wholly owned by held by the UMKK.

(c) MGBKK was wholly owned by the Dutch company MGBV, which is a Dutch company. MGBV was wholly owned by Polygram.

(d) V2J was wholly owned by V2, a UK company, which was indirectly owned by Polygram. indirectly held by Polygram.

(2) Transactions relating to the Reorganisation

(a) Since 2000 (2000), the Group of Companies has been undergoing a reorganisation due to the increase in the number of the Music Sector Corporations in question and the complexity of the capital relationship between them. The basic policy was to establish a single holding company in each country and to have operating companies, etc., belong to that holding company, thereby reducing the number of legal entities and ensuring an appropriate balance of capital and liabilities among the legal entities in each country. The group of companies in question was to be organised by 2/3 July 2008 at the latest. The Corporate Group then formulated a plan for the reorganisation, etc. of its Japanese affiliates (hereinafter referred to as the "Scheme of Reorganisation, etc.") by 2/3 July 2008 at the latest. (a) The Corporate Group has formulated the following

(a) In the Corporate Group, the following transactions relating to the reorganisation under the Scheme (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Reorganisation Transactions") were carried out (unless specifically declined). (unless otherwise stated, the month and date in this paragraph refer to the year 2008 (2008)).

(a) Establishment and capital increase of the appellant.

CMH, a UK company wholly owned by Polygram, established a Dutch company, CMHL, on 25 September CMHL was established, and CMHL was On 7 October, the appellant was incorporated with a capital of 2 million. On 29 September, the appellant received an additional capital injection of JPY 2.95 billion from CMHL (hereinafter referred to as "capital injection"). On 29 October, the appellant received an additional capital injection of ¥2.95 billion from CMHL (hereinafter referred to as the "Additional Capital Investment"). (a) The borrowing

(b) The Borrowing

On 29 October, the appellant entered into a loan agreement with UMIF, a French company, in the amount of On 29 October, the Appellant entered into a loan agreement with UMIF, a French corporation, to borrow ¥86,661,320,000 on an unsecured basis and on the same day On the same day, the Appellant received the same amount from UMIF (the Borrowing). The loan agreements are as follows: a. to d., of which the interest and repayment period are as follows: a. The borrowing was made by the appellant, which had generated a large amount of profit UMKK to be merged into UMKK (hereinafter referred to as the "Merger"). The decision was made on the basis of the anticipated profits, on the assumption that the appellant would take over its business by means of a merger with UMKK, which was generating significant profits.

a The borrowings were to be used to finance the UMKK, the MGBKK and V2J ("the respective domestic corporations"). The loans will be used solely for the purchase price of the shares in UMKK and related costs.

b The rate of interest is 6.5% per annum until 29 October 2014 (2014). 6.8% per annum until 29 October 2014 and 5.9% per annum thereafter.

c The appellant shall pay the balance of the loan on 29 October The appellant shall repay the balance of the loan and accrued interest on 29 October 2028.

d The appellant shall have until 29 October 2009 to repay the balance of the loan and accrued interest, etc. The appellant has until 29 October 2009 to repay up to JPY 30 billion of the loan, and until 29 October 2014. The appellant may repay the entire loan at any time on or after 29 October 2014. (c) The respondent is entitled to repay the borrowings up to 30 billion yen on 29 October 2009.

(c) Acquisition by the appellant of all the issued shares of each of the domestic corporations in question (acquisition)

a On 29 October, the appellant acquired from UMTC UMKK from UMTC on 29 October for a price of 1 14,418 million yen. The appellant entered into a sale and purchase agreement to purchase all the issued shares of UMKK from UMTC for a price of JPY 11,401,800,000,000 and paid the same amount to UMTC to acquire the above shares (the This acquisition of shares is hereinafter referred to as the "UMKK Acquisition").

b On 29 October, the respondent from MGBV. MGBKK from MGBV for a price of 1,469 million yen. On 29 October, the respondent entered into a purchase agreement with MGBV to purchase all the issued shares of MGBKK for a price of 1,469 million yen and paid the same amount to MGBV to acquire the above-mentioned shares (hereinafter referred to as the "Acquisition"). This acquisition of shares is hereinafter referred to as the "MGBKK Acquisition").

c On 29 October, the respondent purchased from V2 J for a price of GBP 2,000, and paid V2 the same amount, equivalent to 320,000, equivalent to the same amount, to V2 and acquired the above shares (the acquisition of the shares is hereinafter referred to as the "V2J Acquisition"). (d) The V2J Acquisition.

(d) Establishment of UMPGK by the appellant

On 6 November, the appellant established UMPGK. Merger by absorption by the appellant and UMPGK

a On 10 November, the appellant and UMPGK merged. On 10 November, the appellant and UMPGK entered into an agreement for an absorption-type merger, with the appellant as the surviving company and UMPGK as the dissolving company. The merger took effect on 1 January 2009 (the Merger).

b UMPGK and MGBKK and UMPGKK entered into an absorption-type merger agreement with UMPGK as the surviving company. UMPGK as the surviving company and MGBKK and UMPKK as the dissolving company. UMPGKK as the surviving company and MGBKK and UMPKK as the dissolving companies. The merger took effect on 1 July 2011.

As a result of the Reorganisation Transaction, the main capital relationships in the Music Division Corporations were as set out in Appendix 6 of the First Trial and Decision, while the capital relationships in the Japanese affiliated companies were as follows

(a) Polygram owned all of CMH, and CMH owns all of CMHL, and CMHL owns all of the appellant's interests.

(b) The appellant owns all of the interests in UMPGK and V2J.

(c) UMTC, which previously held all the interests in each of the domestic corporations in question, respectively. MGBB V and V2 do not hold any shares or investments in the Japanese affiliates.

(3) Transactions relating to the financial aspects of the Reorganisation Transactions

(a) On 29 October 2008, the Corporate Group On 29 October 2008, the following transactions relating to the financing of the Additional Investment, the Borrowing and the acquisition of the Domestic Companies (collectively, the "Finance Related Transactions", and collectively with the Reorganisation Transactions, the "Reorganisation Transactions") took place: (i) the Acquisition of the Domestic Companies (the "Acquisition") The following transactions (collectively, the "Finance Related Transactions") took place.

(a) Procurement of the source of the additional capital injection (JPY 29.5 billion)

Vivendi made a capital injection to UMGT, a French corporation, and UMGT made a capital injection to UMO, a UK corporation, in the amount of 199,950,000 to UMO, a UK company, in turn. 4332.16 pounds sterling was remitted by UMO to CMH remitted this to CMH as a capital contribution; CMH exchanged the above money with Vivendi in the amount of 247,192,894.25 euros. CMH obtained EUR 247,192,894.25 and remitted this to CMHL as a capital contribution. CMHL then exchanged the above money with Vivendi and obtained EUR 29,500,000,000. CMHL remitted this to the Appellant as a capital contribution (the Additional Capital Contribution).

(b) Procurement of the source of the Borrowing (JPY 86,661,320,000)

a. Vivendi made a contribution to UMGT in the amount of UMGT, in turn, to UMIF, in the amount of 4 655,569,980.0. UMIF exchanged money with Vivendi in respect of the above sums and obtained €555,957,000.00. 559.57 million.

b. Vivendi has transferred to UMGT EUR 5,555,957,000. UMGT in turn remitted to UMIF the sum of JPY 3,500,000,000. Vivendi remitted JPY 300 million to UMGT and UMIF in turn.

c Vivendi remitted to the UMGT UMGT, in turn, to UMIF, in the amount of EUR 9,232,026.14. EUR 9,232,026.14. UMIF exchanged the above money with Vivendi for EUR 1,100,175.00. 1,175,000.00.

d UMIF remitted to the appellant a total of the above sum of 86,6 61.32 million as a loan (the Borrowing).

(c) UMKK remitted the proceeds of the UMKK acquisition (11,401.8 million yen), etc. (c) Remittance, etc., of the proceeds of the UMKKKK acquisition (JPY 11,441.8 million)

(a) UMTC remitted the proceeds of the UMKK Acquisition paid by the Appellant to Vivendi in the form of a loan (the Loan). UMTC exchanged the proceeds of the UMKK acquisition paid by the appellant with Vivendi and obtained EUR 958,750,000.00. EUR 6,494.05. b UMTC made a loan to Polygram as a loan and Polygram made a UMIF, in turn, as repayment of the loan, and PolyGram, in turn, as repayment of the money referred to in a above, in the amount of EUR 480 EUR 429,234,460.10 was remitted.

c UMTC, a Dutch company, has UIMBV, a Dutch company, of the money referred to in a above in the amount of EUR 407,830,333.95. EUR 583,033.95 as a loan. UMTC remitted EUR 458,330,333.95 as a loan.

UIMBV remitted EUR 409,373,498.58 of this amount as a loan. EUR 23,498.58. to UMIF and the remaining EUR 66,509,000 EUR 535.37 to UMGT as repayment of the loan. remitted the remaining EUR 66,509,535.37 to UMGT as repayment of the borrowing, respectively.

d UMIF has remitted to UMGT the amount of The total of EUR 892,246,000.68, which was remitted as per b and c above, was remitted to UMGT. EUR 958.68, which was remitted as per b and c above.

e UMGT remitted to Vivendi a total of 958,775,464.94. EUR 05 was remitted.

(d) The payment for the MGBKK acquisition (EUR 1,469,000,000). 00 million) remitted, etc.

MGBBV has entered into an agreement with Vivendi to remit the MGBBBV exchanged the payment for the MGBK K acquisition paid by the Appellant and remitted the amount of 123 (€1,409,368.19). The MGBBV then sent against UIMBV. UIMBV against UMGT. UM GT in turn transferred EUR 12,300,000.19 to Vivendi. EUR 9,368.19 was transferred.

(b) The change in the amount of funds as a result of the finance-related transactions was a decrease in funds of 274.32 million for Vivendi, an increase in funds of 274 million for the appellant, an increase in funds of 274.4 million increase in funds and UMO €320,000. The other Music Sector Corporations did not experience any change in the amount of funds as a result.

(4) Purpose of the Reorganisation Transactions, etc.

(a) The Reorganisation Transactions, etc. are intended to simultaneously achieve the following objectives (hereinafter referred to as the "Objectives"), which were established in the formulation of the Scheme of Reorganisation, etc. (a) The Reorganisation Transactions, etc. were intended to simultaneously achieve the following objectives (the "Objectives"), which were set out when the Reorganisation Scheme was formulated

(a) To raise funds for the repayment of the Music Division's overall debt to reduce the overall debt of the Dutch entity in question.

(b) To combine the Japanese affiliates under one company.

(c) To combine the music publishing companies in Japan into one company through a merger.

(d) To eliminate the surplus of yen funds held by the Japanese affiliates and to enable Vivendi to carry out its investment activities in the euro market without hedging risks related to exchange rates.

(e) Introducing liabilities into the capital structure of the Japanese affiliate to reduce the foreign exchange risks associated with the yen-denominated assets held by the Japanese affiliate and the yen-denominated cash flows generated by the Japanese affiliate.

(f) To rationalise and streamline management by unifying the operational and capital systems and to reduce the surplus of funds held by UMO.

(g) To receive the benefits or avoid the disadvantages of the US tax system by making the Japanese affiliate a limited liability company, and to allow the Japanese affiliates, including the appellant, to operate their businesses in a flexible and agile manner.

(h) To prepare for the acquisition of music business companies in Japan other than the Music Division Corporation, which was being considered at the time.

(b) (a) The Music Division consists of corporations in which UMG, a U.S. corporation, directly or indirectly owns all of the equity, and because each of the domestic corporations in question was a joint stock company, the U.S. tax rules in the U.S. did not allow UMG to acquire any of the domestic corporations in question under the so-called However, the fact that the appellant, which became the Japanese controlling company in the Music Division, was incorporated as a limited liability company made it possible for the appellant to elect to be taxed as a member under the above rules. The limited liability company was established as a joint-stock company.

Whereas a limited liability company allows for more flexible business operations in contrast to a joint stock company, the articles of association of the appellant, which is a limited liability company, stipulate that the business of the appellant is determined by the members who execute the business and that these members are CMHL and that the members of the company shall be CMHL.

(5) Each of the Dispositions

(a) For each of the fiscal years in question, the Appellant included the following ~ in the amount of interest expenses in question in its deductible expenses and filed a corporate tax return as per Tables 1, 3 and 5 of the First Trial and Appeal Decision. The amount of the interest expenses from the year ended 31 December 2009 to the year ended 31 December 2012 was included in the amount of deductible expenses as follows. The amount of the interest paid from the year ended 31 December 2009 to the year ended 31 December 2012 was equivalent to a majority of the amount of profit, which, if included in deductible expenses, would have significantly reduced the amount of corporate tax.

(a) Year ended 31 December 2008: 1,047,676 39,069,069 Year ended 31 December 2009 4,410,810,656 2 yen Year ended 31 December 2010 3,906 4,483,229 Year ended 31 December 2011 Year ended 31 December 2011: 3,906,483,229 228 yen Year ended 31 December 2012: 3,800,000,000 13,329,703,033 yen

(b) In response, the Azabu Tax Commissioner applied Article 132(1) of the Corporate Tax Act and denied the acts that caused the deduction, on the grounds that the inclusion of the aforementioned amount in deductible expenses would result in an unreasonable decrease in the appellant's corporate tax burden. The Court of Appeal denied the acts that caused the above-mentioned loss, added an amount equivalent to the amount of interest paid to the amount of the appellant's income, calculated the amount of corporate tax of the appellant for each of the fiscal years in question, and made the respective dispositions in question as shown in Tables 1, 3 and 5 of the First Trial Decision. The respective dispositions in this case were made as follows.

3 (1) Article 132(1) of the Corporation Tax Act provides that, in a related company, etc., which is a corporation listed in each item of the same paragraph, its decision-making is influenced by the intentions of a small number of shareholders, etc., with the result that the corporation tax burden is unreasonably reduced. In order to maintain the fairness of the tax burden, the Commissioner of Taxation is empowered, in cases where such acts or calculations have been made, to correct or determine the corporate tax by restating the acts or calculations as normal. In view of the purpose and content of the said section, it is not possible to say that "if this is allowed, the corporate tax burden will be unreasonably reduced".

The term "which, if permitted, would result in an unjustifiable decrease in the burden of corporate income tax" means any act or calculation of a related company, etc., which is not economically

(2) The term "those which, if accepted, would result in an unreasonable decrease in the burden of corporate income tax" as used in the said paragraph means those acts or calculations of the related company, etc. which are unnatural or unreasonable from an economic and practical standpoint, i.e. those which lack economic rationality.

The term "acts or calculations of a related company, etc. that are unnatural or unreasonable from an economic and practical standpoint, i.e. those that lack economic rationality and result in a decrease in the corporate tax burden" shall be interpreted as follows

(2) The taxation of related companies, etc.

(2) Whether or not the borrowing of money by a related company, etc. lacks the above-mentioned economic rationality should be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as the purpose of the borrowing and the terms of the loan. If, as in the case of the borrowing in question, a related company belonging to the corporate group borrows money from another company belonging to the corporate group as part of a series of transactions relating to the reorganisation of the corporate group, and the series of transactions as a whole lacks economic rationality, the borrowing should be judged to be unreasonable in terms of its purpose, which is to meet the financing needs of the corporate group. The borrowing is assessed as unreasonable in terms of its purpose, i.e. the purpose to be achieved by the fulfilment of the financing needs by the borrowing. In examining whether the entire series of transactions lacks economic rationality, it is necessary to consider (i) whether the series of transactions is unnatural, such as being based on procedures or methods that would not normally be expected or creating a form that is out of step with the actual situation, and (ii) whether there are reasonable grounds for such a reorganisation, other than a reduction in the tax burden. (2) It is reasonable to consider circumstances such as (i) whether there are business objectives or other reasons that provide reasonable grounds for such a reorganisation other than a reduction in the tax burden.

(3) (a) Therefore, based on what has been said above, after considering whether the borrowing in question can be assessed as unreasonable in terms of its purpose, it will be determined whether the borrowing in question lacks economic rationality, taking into account the other circumstances relating to the borrowing in question.

(a) The Reorganisation Transaction is a reorganisation such as establishing the Appellant as a company that controls Japan in the Music Division, and for an international corporate group, establishing a company that controls bases in each region contributes to unifying business relationships in that region and rationalising indirect departments such as accounting and human resources. This is generally considered to be a reasonable measure as it contributes to the rationalisation of business relationships and indirect departments such as accounting and human resources in the region. Further, the establishment of the Appellant as a limited liability company is beneficial to the Music Division in question and to the corporate group in question as a whole, as it enables the Appellant to opt for constituent taxation under the check-the-box rule in respect of the Appellant and to operate its business more flexibly.

On the other hand, the finance-related transactions in this case were all conducted on the same day and involved a series of remittances and exchanges between Vivendi and the Music Division Corporation as capital contributions, loans, repayment of loans, etc., resulting in a change in funds of over JPY 270 million between Vivendi and the Appellant. The funds of the other music corporations in the Music Division did not fluctuate significantly, except for a fluctuation of over 270 million yen between Vivendi and the Appellant. The corporate group, however, is not a legal entity in any of the countries in which it operates, and the amount of interest it bears is not a significant one. However, the corporate group in question has carried out reorganisations under a basic policy such as ensuring an appropriate balance of equity and liabilities between the legal entities in each country, and in light of the content of each of the objectives set out in formulating the Scheme of Reorganisation, etc., the Reorganisation Transactions, etc., including the Finance Related Transactions, include the following (i) the purpose of reducing the number of legal entities by arranging the capital relationship of the Japanese affiliates and the directing and supervising relationship in business execution with them; (ii) the purpose of making the company controlling Japan in the Music Division a limited liability company from the perspective of flexible business operations; (iii) the purpose of raising repayment funds to reduce the overall debt of the Dutch companies in the Music Division; and The purpose of the Reorganisation Transaction, etc. was to eliminate the surplus of funds held by the Japanese affiliates and UMO and to eliminate the need for Vivendi to hedge its foreign exchange risks. It is difficult to say that the Reorganisation Transactions, etc. were not normally envisaged as transactions that would simultaneously achieve these purposes, and there are no circumstances that suggest that the Treasury Related Transactions did not actually exist.

(b) However, the Reorganisation Transactions had the purpose of introducing liabilities into the capital structure of the Japanese Companies, and there are no circumstances to suggest that there were no actual financial-related transactions in the Reorganisation Transactions. The amount of interest paid for the fiscal years from 2009 to 2012, which are the fiscal years after the merger, would have resulted in a significant decrease in the amount of corporate tax if it had been included in the amount of deductible expenses. The purpose of the above was to reduce the tax burden of the appellant by making the appellant, who had taken over the business of UMKK, which had generated a large amount of profit, bear a large amount of interest debts.

However, in addition to the reduction of the tax burden, the Reorganisation Transactions had other purposes as explained above, which can be assessed as reasonable reasons for the Reorganisation Transactions.

(c) According to the above, the Reorganisation Transactions are not unnatural, such as being based on procedures and methods that are not normally assumed or creating a form that is different from the actual situation, and there are business purposes and other reasons other than a decrease in the tax burden that are reasonable reasons for conducting the Reorganisation Transactions. It can be said that there were business purposes and other reasons other than a decrease in the tax burden that were reasonable reasons for conducting the Reorganisation Transactions.

In this way, the Reorganisation Transactions, etc. cannot be said to lack economic rationality when considered as a whole, and the Borrowing is not regarded as unreasonable in terms of its purpose.

(d) In terms of other circumstances relating to the borrowing, the borrowing was unsecured, and it can be seen that the appellant was ultimately insolvent on its balance sheet as a result of the borrowing. The Borrowing is different in some respects from transactions normally conducted between independent, equal and mutually unrelated parties.

However, the borrowings in question were made under an agreement to be used solely for the purchase price of the shares of the domestic corporations in question and related costs, and in fact the appellant acquired the shares and brought the domestic corporations under its control, and there is no indication that the amount borrowed was unreasonably high in relation to its intended use. In addition, the interest and repayment period of the loan were determined based on the expected profit of the appellant, and there is no evidence that the appellant is currently experiencing any difficulty in paying the interest on the loan.

It is therefore difficult to say that the above points make the borrowing unnatural or unreasonable.

(d) Considering the above circumstances as a whole, the borrowing in question cannot be said to be unnatural or unreasonable from an economic and substantive standpoint, i.e. to lack economic rationality.

Therefore, the borrowing in question does not fall within the scope of Article 132(1) of the Corporate Tax Act, which states that "the borrowing is deemed to result in an unreasonable decrease in the corporate tax burden if it is permitted".

The same is true in the case of the original trial.

4. The decision of the original court to the same effect as above is justified and can be accepted. The arguments cannot be adopted.

Accordingly, in the unanimous opinion of all the judges, the judgment is rendered as stated in the main text.

(Presiding Judge: Masaaki Oka, Judge Atsushi Yamaguchi, Judge Takuya Miyama, Judge Ryosuke Yasunami, Judge Toru Sakai)

 

 

Appended Table

 

Abbreviated name Name of the legal entity (according to the notation in the judgment of the first instance)

UMIF UMI Finance S.A.S.

Vivendi Vivendi S.A.

UMKK Universal Music Corporation

UMPKK Universal Music Publishing Corporation

MGBKK Universal Music MGB Publishing Inc.

MGBKK Universal Music MGB Publishing Inc.

V2J V2J Records Japan Inc.

UMTC Universal Music Trading Company, Inc.

B.V.

Polygram Polygram B.V.

MGBBV Universal Music Publishing MGB

MGBBV Universal Music Publishing MGBBV

V2 Vito Music Group Limited

CMH Centenary Music Holdings Limited

CMHL CMHL B.V.

UMPGK Universal Music Publishing LLC

UMGT UMG Treasury S.A.S.

UMO UMO UM Operations Limited

UIMBV Universal International Music B.V.

UMG Universal Music Group Inc.