Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yellow-man et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Director of Gangnam District Office

April 26, 2017

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap69744 decided September 1, 2016

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Claim: The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 347,454,330 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on September 1, 2014 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal: The text of appeal;

1. The part citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance

Of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the part regarding “related Acts and subordinate statutes” in the part concerning “the circumstances of the second and fourth dispositions” in the part concerning “related Acts and subordinate statutes” in the third and sixth acts shall be cited as the reasoning of this court pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main part of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the part not exceeding seven of the judgment of the court of first instance

2. The part to be mard;

B. Determination

1) 이 사건 처분은 솔로몬이 구 상증세법 제40조 제1항 에서 규정한 인수인에 해당할 경우 구 상증세법 제40조 제1항 제2호 ㈏목 을 적용할 수 있게 되어 적법하게 된다. 그런데 구 상증세법 제40조 제1항 의 인수인은 당초 ‘증권거래법에 따른 인수인’으로 규정되었다가 구 상증세법이 2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9916호로 개정되면서 ‘ 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제9조 제12항 에 따른 인수인’으로 규정되었는데, 양자를 살펴보면 그 범위가 다르게 되어 있다.

2) In other words, Article 2 (7) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "the underwriter" in this Act means a person who engages in any conduct falling under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (6). The term "as defined in paragraph (6) of this Article" means an act falling under any of the following subparagraphs. "As defined in subparagraph (1) of this Article, the term "as defined in any of the following subparagraphs" means acquiring all or part of the securities from the issuer for the purpose of selling the securities (as defined in subparagraph 1). "As to the issuance of the securities, the contract to acquire the remainder when there is no person who acquires them in the process of issuing the securities (as defined in subparagraph 2)," "as defined in subparagraph 2, the contract to directly or indirectly make arrangements for the public offering or sale of the securities on behalf of the issuer (as defined in subparagraph 3)", and "A" means a person who, in principle, purchases or sells the securities with a view to acquiring it, or a person who does not otherwise participate in the public offering of the securities, directly or indirectly, in the public offering of the securities.

3) However, the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act”) enacted by Act No. 8635 on Aug. 3, 2007 and enforced on Feb. 4, 2009, Article 9(12) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that “A person who performs an act falling under any of the subparagraphs of paragraph (11) in the event of public offering, private placement, or public sale of securities” means a person who acquires securities with the intention of acquiring all or part of the securities with the intention of acquiring them from a third party (Article 8(1)1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act and Article 9(11) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that “The purpose of the former Securities and Exchange Act is to make a third party acquire all or part of the securities with the intention of acquiring them from a third party (Article 8(2)2 of the former Securities and Exchange Act) with the intention of acquiring them from a third party without the intention of acquiring them in whole or in part (Article 8(2)2).

4) However, Article 44(1) of the Addenda of the former Capital Markets Act, which was enacted by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007 and enforced as of Feb. 4, 2009, shall be deemed to have accepted the corresponding provisions of this Act or this Act instead of the previous provisions, in cases where the corresponding provisions of this Act are cited in the former Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 9916 of Jan. 1, 2010). Since the former Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 9916 of Feb. 4, 2009), the provisions of the former Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007) have been cited in the former Act, the provisions of the former Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 9935 of Feb. 1, 209) have been cited in the provisions of the former Capital Markets Act (amended by Act No. 9630, Mar. 29, 2009>

5) 그런데 을 제2, 7호증의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 소외 2의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 솔로몬이 2009. 10. 23. 엔알디로부터 사모로 발행된 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 인수한 것은 원고측에서 그 50%를 다시 매입하기로 하였기 때문이었고, 인수계약에서도 인수수수료로 1억 6천만원을 지급하기로 하는 조항(제8조)과 ‘솔로몬측이 발행회사인 엔알디의 동의 없이 인수한 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 자유로이 양도할 수 있고, 신주인수권만을 분리하여 제3자에게 양도할 수 있다’는 조항(제17조)을 두었던 사실, 대전지방국세청장의 엔알디에 대한 주식변동조사 당시 원고측에서도 원고가 취득한 이 사건 신주인수권증권을 제외한 나머지 신주인수권증권도 솔로몬측 실무책임자인 소외 2의 주선으로 타인들이 인수하였다는 내용의 소명서(을 제7호증)를 제출하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 의하면 솔로몬은 이 사건 신주인수권증권을 제삼자에게 취득하게 할 목적으로 취득하였다고 할 수 있는 점에서 50인 이상에 대한 매출목적 유무와 상관없이 구 상증세법 제40조 제1항 제2호 ㈏목 의 적용에 있어 ‘인수인’에 해당하고, 따라서 이 사건 처분은 위 조항을 근거로 한 점에서 적법하다고 할 수 있다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, on different premise, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the disposition of this case should be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-tae (Presiding Judge)