Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On April 1, 1997, 200, ○ Venture Co., Ltd. and ○ Venture Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Venture Co., Ltd.”) were established for the purpose of advertising production and advertising agency. The Plaintiff held approximately 50,000 shares out of 271,00 shares issued by ○○ Venture Co., Ltd., and on March 28, 2001, 100 shares of ○ Venture Co., Ltd., together with other shareholders of ○○ Venture Co., Ltd., Ltd., 300 shares, including the Plaintiff’s shares owned by ○ Venture Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., 300 won per 7,491 won per share, 300,000 won per 60,000 won per 30,000 ○○○○○○○ Ma36,000 won per share (hereinafter “○○ 203,010 shares”).

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation on the change of shares against the ○○○○ PM, on November 28, 2001, confirmed that the Plaintiff acquired 33,680 new shares per share below KRW 43,638 per share, which is the appraised value at that time, among 134,724 shares forfeited due to the waiver of acceptance by the ○○ TPP at the time of increase of the price by November 28, 201, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data.

D. On January 2, 2007, the Defendant notified taxation data, and determined and notified KRW 360,531,136 and penalty tax of KRW 144,212,454 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

(a)the plaintiff's assertion;

(1) The deemed donation provision under Article 39(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 6780, Dec. 18, 2002; hereinafter the same) is limited to the case where new shares are issued in order to increase the capital of the corporation to which the provision is applicable. The Plaintiff’s participation in the offering of new shares was limited to the case where the Plaintiff transferred the management right as a major shareholder in the course of transferring ○○ Venture’s shares in accordance with the merger agreement with ○WT. Since ○○PMC issued new shares to the Plaintiff through the offering of new shares as a merger agreement, it does not constitute the case where new shares are issued in order to increase the capital of the corporation under Article 39(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the disposition of this case is unlawful against the principle of taxation requirement or the principle of strict interpretation.

(2) If there is no substance as a gift pursuant to the substance over form principle, gift tax may not be imposed on the Plaintiff. The new shares allocated to the Plaintiff during the process of capital increase with the new shares fall under the price for the management right of the ○○ Venture business held by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff does not receive profits from the shareholders of the ○○○PMC without compensation. Accordingly, the allocation of new shares in this case did not have the substance as a gift, and thus, the Defendant’s imposition of gift tax is unlawful as it goes against the substance over form principle.

(3) Although the Plaintiff was not formally a shareholder of ○○○○ MF at the time of the allocation of the instant new shares, it merely took the appearance of a person who is not a shareholder due to the passage of time following the agreement to receive the allocation of shares after the merger, its status shall be deemed as a shareholder in a series of processes following the merger. Accordingly, the instant disposition against the Plaintiff is unlawful against the principle of substantial taxation.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The ○○ Venture Business was engaged in advertising agency business by making ○○○ Business, ○○ ○○ Macer, and ○○○ Group as an advertiser who is a principal seller. The shareholders were composed of three advertisers’ specially related persons. However, as of December 31, 200, the shareholder composition details by advertiser of ○○ Venture Business as of December 31, 200 are as follows.

Table Omission of the Table

(2) On March 8, 2001, local shareholders and independent shareholders of the ○○ Venture, including the Plaintiff, have prepared a shareholder agreement with the ○○ T on March 8, 201. The main contents are as follows.

(3) 위 주주협약서의 내용에 따라 원고를 비롯한 ○○벤처의 주주들은 2001.3.28. ○○벤처의 발행주식 전부(271,000)를 1주당 77,491원으로 평가하여 ○WT에게 양도하였고, 이후 원고는 2001.5.30. ○○벤처의 주식 50,000주의 양도가액을 3,874,550,000원(= 50,000주☓ 1주당 77,491원)으로 하여 양도소득세 304,339,860원을 신고ㆍ납부하였다.

(4) On November 24, 2001, 201, ○○○○○○○○○ PMc has adopted a resolution by holding a board of directors meeting on November 24, 2001 to increase the capital of ○○ KRW 1,821,230,00 for the first time by increasing the total of KRW 673,620,00 to KRW 2,494,80,000 for shares owned by a shareholder listed on the shareholder registry as of the date of the allocation of new shares, but if the shareholder waives his preemptive right to new shares for all or part of the new shares or fails to subscribe by the date of subscription, the resolution was adopted by the board of directors to dispose of all forfeited shares.

(5) After that, ○○○○○○, a sole shareholder of the ○○○○C, decided on November 24, 2001 to allocate 53,890 shares to Kim Young-young on November 26, 2001, and 23,577 shares to ○○○○, a sole shareholder of the ○○○○○C, respectively, and to assign 23,577 shares to ○○○.

(6) On November 26, 2001, 201, 4 persons, including the Plaintiff, to whom new shares were allocated, offered an offer to each of the above new shares, and on November 28, 2001, 000, 000C terminated the procedure for issuing new shares. The current status of 00C’s share changes before and after issuing new shares is as follows.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 6-3, Eul evidence 6-4, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 9-2 through 4, and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 39(1) of the Act provides that a person who obtains certain benefits from the issuance of new stocks or equity shares by a corporation for the purpose of increasing its capital shall be deemed to have received a donation of the amount equivalent to such benefits, and subparagraph 1 of the same Article provides for certain benefits in cases where new stocks are issued at a price lower than their market price. Among them, item (a) of the same Article provides for the benefits acquired by the person who received the allocation of forfeited stocks by obtaining the allocation of forfeited stocks in cases where the relevant corporation renounces all or part of the right to receive the allocation of new stocks,

(2) 그러므로 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 유상증자를 통해 ○○PMC의 자본금이 673,620,000원만큼 증가하였고, ○○PMC는 신주를 1주당 43,638원인 평가액보다 낮은 1주당 5,000원씩에 발행하였으며, ○○PMC의 단독 주주인 ○WT가 이 사건 유상증자에 따른 신주인수권을 모두 포기함에 따라 원고가 이 사건 신주를 배정받아 총 1,301,327,840원(= 33,680주☓(43,638원-5,000원)) 상당의 이익을 취득하였던 것인바, 법 제39조 제1항에 규정된 법인의 자본을 증가시키기 위하여 새로운 주식을 발행한 경우라 함은 주식회사의 경우에 당해 회사의 성립 이후 발행가능한 주식총수의 범위 내에서 새로이 주식을 발행하는 모든 경우를 의미하는 것으로, 원고 주장과 같이 원고가 ○WT와의 합병계약에 따라 ○○벤처의 주식을 양도하면서 대주주로서의 경영권을 양도한 데에 대한 대ㅔ가로 이 사건 유상증자에 참여하여 이 사건 신주를 배정받게 된 것인지의 여부는 과세요건법정주의 내지 엄격해석의 원칙과 관련하여 위 제39조 제1항의 요건이 충족되었는지에 관한 판단에는 아무런 영향을 주지 않는다 할 것이고, 또한 법 제39조 제1항의 규정은 신주인수권의 포기와 인수라는 절차를 통하여 신주의 평가액과 신주인수가액와의 차액 상당이 증여되는 것을 증여세 과세대상을 포착하여 과세하고자 하는 것으로서 신주인수권을 포기한 주주에게 증여의사가 이었는지 여부에 관계없이 증여로 본다는 규정이므로 이는 추정규정이 아니라 본래의 의미의 의제규정이라 할 것이므로(대법원 1993.7.27. 선고 93누 1343 판결 등 참조), 가사 원고의 주장과 같이 이 사건 유상증자를 통해 원고에게 배정된 이 사건 신주가 원고가 기존에 보유하던 ○○벤처의 주식 및 경영권에 대한 대가에 해당하고, 원고가 ○WT와 사이에 체결한 약정에 따라 이 사건 신주의 배정을 통해 ○○PMC의 주주가 될 것임이 사전에 예정되어 있었다 하더라도, 원고가 이 사건 유상증자에 참여하여 신주평가액보다 저렴하게 신주를 인수함으로써 실질적인 이익을 취득한 이상 이를 증여로 의제한다 하더라도 실질과세의 원칙에 위배된다고는 할 수 없으므로, 결국 원고가 이 사건 유상증자를 통하여 이 사건 신주를 배정받은 것은 법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목에서 규정하고 이는 증자에 따른 증여의제의 과세요건을 모두 구비한 것으로서 피고의 이 사건 처분은 적법하다 할 것이고, 이와 다른 원고의 주장은 모두 이유 없다

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.