1. Article 56-2(1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides, “A corporation which intends to list stocks for the first time to the Korea Stock Exchange may conduct revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act by specifying the first day of each month as the revaluation date, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 4 and 38 of the Assets Revaluation Act.” Article 15(1)5 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4803, Dec. 22, 1994) provides, “The revaluation spread under the Assets Revaluation Act shall not be included in the gross income in calculating the income amount for the pertinent business year.” However, Article 23(1) of the Addenda of the Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act amended by Act No. 4285, Dec. 31, 190; Article 138 of the Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act shall not be deemed revaluation of stocks already made by a corporation under Article 56-2(131) of the Assets Revaluation Act.

The legislative purport of each of the above provisions is to induce the listing of stocks by excluding the revaluation difference from the taxable object of corporate tax even though a corporation which has conducted a revaluation of assets on the premise of stock listing for the purpose of revitalizing the stock market, and to prevent any abuse by depriving of such special taxation in cases where the relevant corporation is negligent in listing stocks after the fact. Therefore, even if a corporation which conducted a revaluation of assets under Article 56-2 (1) of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act fails to list stocks by December 31, 2003, if the cause arises from a justifiable cause not attributable to the relevant corporation, corporate tax shall not be imposed on the revaluation difference (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du3842, Apr. 28, 2011).

2. After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence adopted, the court below determined that the provision on listing of the Korea Stock Exchange’s “securities Listing Regulations” (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004, Article 115(1) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 7114 of Jan. 29, 2004) provided that “in order for a life insurance company to list its stocks, a mutual company should be resolved by allocating listing profits to policyholders,” and that as a result, there was an institutional obstacle to listing of the life insurance company’s stocks until April 30, 207. However, since the provisions on listing of this case did not have the legal basis, it is reasonable to view that the government and Korea Stock Exchange did not have any other institutional obstacle, such as removing the listing requirements provisions of this case’s stocks under the same conditions as that of another life insurance company, and thus, it was unlawful for the Plaintiff to have failed to list its stocks in the process of pleading 20131.

In light of the above provisions, legal principles, and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the principles of strict interpretation of tax laws, the nature of securities listing regulations, or the legal principles as to justifiable grounds for excluding taxation on revaluation spread, which are justifiable grounds for excluding taxation on revaluation spread, which affected the conclusion of judgment

3. In addition, a refund of revaluation tax already paid by the Plaintiff was made on the ground that the revaluated of this case did not constitute revaluation under the Assets Revaluation Act due to the Plaintiff’s failure to list the Plaintiff’s stocks, and thus, a refund was made by deeming that the grounds for taxation of revaluation tax originally paid by the Plaintiff have disappeared. Therefore, just because the Plaintiff received revaluation tax originally paid by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s dispute over the validity of the disposition of this case violates the good faith principle. Accordingly, the allegation in the other grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

4. 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 on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)