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

The main purport of the claim is as follows: (a) a disposition to correct and impose corporate tax of KRW 34,745,151 among the disposition to impose corporate tax of KRW 148,197,780 against the plaintiff on August 14, 2013; (b) a disposition to correct and impose corporate tax of KRW 35,071,492 among the disposition to impose corporate tax of KRW 149,243,700 for the business year 2010; (c) a disposition to correct and impose corporate tax of KRW 32,231,423 among the disposition to impose corporate tax of KRW 150,984,980 for the business year 201; and (d) a disposition to impose corporate tax of KRW 21,69,140 for the business year 2012, a disposition to impose corporate tax of KRW 96,05,695,603 for the business year 2012.

Of the notice of change in the amount of income of KRW 2,046,329,80 on August 14, 2013 to the Plaintiff, the part of the notice of change in KRW 107,774,33 in the business year 2009, the part of the notice of change in KRW 117,572,00 in the business year 2010, the part of the notice of change in KRW 117,572,00 in the business year 201, the part of the notice of change in KRW 117,572,00 in the business year 201, and the part of the notice of change in KRW 95,40

2. Preliminary claim: on August 14, 2013, the part of the notice of change in KRW 107,774,333 in the business year 2009, the part of the notice of change in KRW 117,572,00 in the business year 2010, the part of the notice of change in KRW 117,572,00 in the business year 201, the part of the notice of change in KRW 95,440,80 in the business year 2012, and the part of the notice of change in KRW 95,40,80 in the business year 201.

가. 원고는 2004. 2. 2. 원고 회사의 대표이사인 유★★으로부터 원고 회사 주식5,600주를 1,383,200,000원(주당 247,000원)에 취득(이하 '이 사건 주식취득'이라 한다)하여 현재까지 보유하고 있다.

나. 피고는 00지방국세청장의 원고에 대한 세무조사 결과에 따라 이 사건 주식 취득이 구 상법(2011. 4. 14. 법률 제10600호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제341조의 자기주식 취득요건을 결여하여 무효이므로, 이 사건 주식취득 대금을 특수관계자에게 업무와 관련 없이 지급한 대여금에 해당하는 것으로 판단하여, 2013. 8. 14. 위 취득대금에 대한 인정이자 572,644,800원(2008년 124,488,000원, 2009년 117,572,000원, 2010년 117,572,000원, 2011년 117,572,000원, 2012년 95,440,800원)을 익금산입함으로써, 같은 금액을 유★★에 대한 상여로 소득처분하는 내용의 소득금액변동통지를 하였고(이하 '이 사건 소득금액변동통지'라 한다), 아울러 원고에게 2008년 사업연도 법인세 177,082,740원(가산세 포함), 2009년 사업연도 법인세 148,197,780원(가산세 포함), 2010년 사업연도 법인세 149,243,700원(가산세 포함), 2011년 사업연도 법인세 150,984,980원(가산세 포함), 2012년 사업연도 법인세 96,059,140원(가산세 포함)을 각 경정・고지하였다(이하 '이 사건 부과처분'이라 한다).다. 원고는 이 사건 소득금액변동통지와 부과처분에 불복하여 2013. 11. 1. 이의신청을 거쳐 2014. 3. 19. 조세심판원에 심판청구를 제기하였으나, 조세심판원은 2014. 12. 3. 기각결정을 하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Eul evidence 1, 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of the purchase price of the instant shares constitutes a commercial claim, and around February 2, 2009, when five years have elapsed since February 2, 2004 when the Plaintiff acquired shares, the right to claim the return of the said shares has expired five years after the expiration of five years. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of the purchase price of the instant shares was unlawful in the gross income of the recognized interest

Division 148,197,780 won in total imposed in 2012 in 2011 in total 149,243,70 won in 150,984,980 won in total 34,745,151 won in 35,071,492 won in 32,231,423 won in total 117,695,603 won in total, and 117,572,572,000 won in total, 117,572,80 won in total, and 107,734,737,157,747,700 won in total, and 97,205,207,700 won in total, or the part of the disposition of income in this case should be revoked as 'unlawful' in the disposition of income in this case' after the disposition of income in this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply or apply mutatis mutandis to claims arising from commercial activities as well as claims corresponding thereto. However, in cases where a stock company pays the purchase price as the performance of a sales contract but seeks the return of the amount equivalent to the purchase price already paid as the sales contract becomes null and void, there is no reasonable ground to deem that there is a need to promptly resolve the same extent as the commercial transaction relation, and thus, Article 64 of the Commercial Act does not apply to a claim for return of unjust enrichment seeking the return of the purchase price, and the extinctive prescription period is ten years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64957, Apr. 8, 2003). Meanwhile, Article 341 of the former Commercial Act provides that the company shall not acquire its own shares on its own account except as otherwise provided in each subparagraph of Article 341 of the former Commercial Act, such as "when it is necessary to achieve its purpose in exercising its rights."

2) 이 사건에 관하여 보건대, 을 제6호증(가지번호 포함)의 기재에 의하면 원고 회사의 대표이사 유★★은 이 사건 주식취득 당시 원고 회사의 총 주식 20,000주 중 5,600주를 보유하고 있다가 원고 회사에게 위 주식 전부를 매도하였고, 2013년 사업연도에 이르기까지 원고 회사는 유★★으로부터 매수한 주식을 소각하지 않고 보유하고 있으며, 이 사건 주식취득 이후 2013년 사업연도까지 원고와 유★★을 제외한 나머지 주주들의 주식 비율은 변동이 없었던 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고가 주식을 소각하기 위하여 이 사건 주식취득을 하였다고 보기 어렵다.

그리고 원고도 유★★이 개인적인 사정으로 주식을 처분하여야 할 상황이어서 유★★의 주식을 취득하였다고 진술하고 있고, 이 사건 주식취득 이후 2013년까지 주주 구성에 변화가 없었던 점과 유★★이 현재까지 계속하여 원고 회사의 대표이사로 재직하는 점을 종합하면, 이 사건 주식취득이 원고 회사의 권리를 실행함에 있어 그 목적을 달성하기 위하여 필요한 경우라고 볼 수도 없다.

Therefore, the acquisition of shares in this case is null and void pursuant to Article 341 of the former Commercial Act, and the plaintiff can seek a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the purchase price of shares in this case. In light of the above legal principles, the claim for return of unjust enrichment in this case cannot be seen as necessary to be promptly resolved to the same extent as the commercial transaction relation. Thus, the extinctive prescription period is ten years pursuant to Article 162(1) of the Civil Act. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim based on the premise that the five-year commercial prescription period is applied to the right to claim the return of purchase price of shares in this case,

3. Conclusion

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