[2] Whether the income earned by a withdrawing member for his/her account at the time of withdrawal constitutes dividend income under Article 17 (1) 3, 7, and 17 (2) 1 of the former Income Tax Act (negative)

[2] 구 소득세법(2005. 12. 31. 법률 제7837호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조 제1항 제7호 는 ‘ 제1호 내지 제6호 의 소득과 유사한 소득으로서 수익분배의 성격이 있는 것’을 배당소득으로 규정하고 있다. 그런데 조합체가 공동사업을 통하여 얻는 일정한 소득금액은 각 조합원의 지분 또는 손익분배비율에 따라 분배되어 조합원들 각자에게 곧바로 귀속되고 개별 조합원이 직접 납세의무를 부담하므로( 구 소득세법 제87조 , 제43조 , 제118조 ) 개별 조합원들이 조합체에서 수익분배를 받는다고 할 수 없으며, 조합원이 탈퇴하면서 지분의 계산으로 일부 조합재산을 받는 경우에도 그로 인한 소득은 곧바로 탈퇴한 조합원에게 귀속할 뿐이다. 따라서 탈퇴한 조합원이 탈퇴 당시 지분의 계산으로 얻는 소득은 구 소득세법 제17조 제1항 제3호 , 제7호 , 제2항 제1호 가 정한 배당소득에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

1. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s share was 3/12 when purchasing and selling, selling, leasing, etc. a building at ○○○○○○ Sports Center (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) on May 30, 2003 with funds invested by five partners, including the Plaintiff, and entering into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to jointly carry out such joint business as selling, selling, leasing, etc. ② partners acquired the instant commercial building at 21,407,00,000 in the public sale procedure on June 2, 2003 and carried out a joint business as a general sales, etc. with the Plaintiff’s share at 21,407,00,000 in the instant commercial building; ③ the Plaintiff retired from the partnership relationship on February 5, 2004; ③ the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the partnership relationship with other partners on 205,000 won excluding subparagraph 204 of the instant commercial building; the Plaintiff’s total amount of investment at 305,500,5000,06,7, etc.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that the instant disposition that the Plaintiff obtained dividend income from the withdrawal of a partnership relationship, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s actual income constitutes “the value of money and other property acquired by an investor due to withdrawal or reduction of investment, which exceeds the amount required for the investor to acquire investment, as income having the nature of profit distribution,” under Article 17(1)3, 7, and 17(2)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7837, Dec. 31, 2005; hereinafter the same) and thus, constitutes “the value of money and other property acquired by the investor due to withdrawal or reduction of investment, which is similar to the amount required by the investor to acquire investment.”

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. In a case where a partner receives some of the partnership properties on account of his/her shares when withdrawing from a partnership, the relationship is terminated as to the individual properties as if a part of the partnership properties were transferred (Article 274(1) of the Civil Act). As such, the calculation of the shares is deemed to have been exchanged or traded among the partnership properties with the partner who retired under the tax law and other partners who continue to conduct a joint business. However, the income gained by the partnership’s transfer of real properties, which are partnership properties, shall be the business income if it becomes a business inventory (Articles 87 and 43 of the former Income Tax Act). If a partner is subject to capital gains tax as fixed assets for business, it shall be capital gains (Article 18 of the former Income Tax Act). Since the nature of the income earned by the withdrawing partner by transferring his/her shares on the partnership properties to other partners and by receiving some partnership properties, it shall be deemed that the withdrawing partner’s business income or capital gains, etc. according to the composition of partnership properties at the time of withdrawal.

한편 구 소득세법 제17조 제1항 제7호 는 ‘ 제1호 내지 제6호 의 소득과 유사한 소득으로서 수익분배의 성격이 있는 것’을 배당소득으로 규정하고 있다. 그런데 조합체가 공동사업을 통하여 얻는 일정한 소득금액은 각 조합원의 지분 또는 손익분배비율에 따라 분배되어 조합원들 각자에게 곧바로 귀속되고 개별 조합원이 직접 납세의무를 부담하므로( 구 소득세법 제87조 , 제43조 , 제118조 ) 개별 조합원들이 조합체로부터 수익분배를 받는다고 할 수 없으며, 어느 조합원이 탈퇴하면서 지분의 계산으로 일부 조합재산을 받는 경우에도 그로 인한 소득은 곧바로 탈퇴한 조합원에게 귀속할 뿐이다. 따라서 탈퇴한 조합원이 탈퇴 당시 지분의 계산으로 얻는 소득은 구 소득세법 제17조 제1항 제3호 , 제7호 , 제2항 제1호 가 정한 배당소득에 해당한다고 할 수 없다.

B. Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Plaintiff received the instant real estate, the inventory assets for the account of the share in the company from the business relationship, and thus, even if there were income accrued such income, it can only become a business income and cannot be a dividend income.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise that the instant disposition was lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s income derived from the business relationship constituted dividend income under Article 17(1)3, 7, and 17(2)1 of the former Income Tax Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the classification of income derived from the account of the share withdrawal from the business relationship. The allegation in the grounds of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)