Daegu District Court 2009Guhap2438 ( October 19, 2011)

Early High Court Decision 2008Gu3951 (Law No. 9.17, 2009)

It seems that the capital reduction has been actually made with the amount obtained by deducting interest paid in advance, so the initial taxation illegality was found to be unlawful.

According to the principle of substantial taxation, it cannot be deemed that the capital reduction resolution was made in accordance with the minutes of the special shareholders' meeting, and it seems that the capital reduction resolution was made because the amount obtained by deducting the interest paid in advance as stated in the actual resolution was paid as the capital reduction price, and therefore, the initial taxation disposition was unlawful.

2011Nu2911 global income and revocation of disposition

Maximum XX 3 others

Head of Dong-gu Tax Office and two others

Daegu District Court Decision 2009Guhap2438 Decided October 19, 2011

November 2, 2012

November 23, 2012

1.The judgment of the first instance, including the claims extended and modified in the trial, shall be modified as follows:

A. The head of the Dong Daegu District Tax Office’s imposition of KRW 000 of the principal tax on global income tax, KRW 000 of the additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on December 1, 2011 shall be revoked, respectively, among the imposition of KRW 00 of the principal tax on global income tax and KRW 000 of the additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on additional tax on global income for December 1, 2006.

B. On November 14, 2008, the part of the disposition imposing global income tax (including additional tax) over KRW 000,000, imposed on Plaintiff KimB by the head of Dong Daegu Tax Office on November 14, 2008, which exceeds KRW 000,000, shall be revoked.

C. On December 1, 2008, the part that exceeds KRW 000 of the global income tax (including additional tax) for the imposition of KRW 000,000 on December 1, 2006, imposed on Plaintiff KimCC by the director of the tax office in North Daegu shall be revoked.

D. On November 7, 2008, the part that exceeds KRW 000 of the global income tax (including additional tax) for the imposition of KRW 000,000, imposed on Plaintiff KimD on November 7, 2008 by the director of the tax office North Northern District Tax Office shall be revoked.

2. The total costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The provisions of Section 1-A, b, c, and d of the Disposition (the plaintiff expanded and modified the purport of the claim by expanding and modifying the assessment date and the cancellation amount of the taxation disposition in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of 000 won for the year 2006, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2006 as of January 3, 201, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2006, global income tax of 2006 as of August 8, 2011 shall be revoked by the head of the Dong Daegu Daegu District Tax Office on November 18, 2008. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of 00,000 won for the global income tax of 206, global income tax of 2006 against the Plaintiff KimB is revoked. The disposition of imposition of global income tax of 200,000, global income tax of 200,000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs, ParkE, and TF hold 37,200 shares of the company running a new house-building shop, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “ XX”). A total of 37,200 shares of the company (the shares of Plaintiffs mostA 9%, KimB, KimB, KimCC, KimD, and Plaintiff LA are 10% of the shares held in title trust, respectively, and the shares of Plaintiff bestA are 11% of the shares held in title trust and 60% of the total shares held in title trust).

B. Plaintiff LA, KimB, and actual managers and beneficial shareholders, who are major shareholders of XX, agreed to reduce all of the shares owned by the Plaintiffs, ParkE, and TF 37,200 shares by commercial retirement on June 2006. The minutes of the provisional shareholders’ meeting in XX include 37,200 shares, which are 60% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares, for the simplification of shareholders at the provisional shareholders’ meeting on August 7, 2006. The minutes of the provisional shareholders’ meeting in XX include 00 won per share on the premise that the net asset value of the piracy is 00 won (00 won x 60% x 37,200 shares). The resolution is made on September 9, 2006.

C. From September 16, 2006 to March 31, 2010, the date of receiving the price for capital reduction, the Plaintiffs, ParkE, and TF filed a global income tax return by asserting that the total sum of KRW 000,000, which remains after deducting the interest calculated at the annual interest rate of 6% for 1,292 days from September 16, 2006, which is the date of receiving the price for capital reduction (i.e., net asset value of KRW 000,000) and KRW 00,000, which is the date of completing the housing sales business (hereinafter referred to as the “advance payment interest”).

D. However, the Defendants: (a) considered the total amount of KRW 000,000,000 of the acquisition value of shares, which was deducted from the stock price of KRW 00,000; and (b) considered the amount of constructive dividend of the Plaintiffs, Park E-E, and TF; and (c) notified the Plaintiffs of each increase in the global income tax for 2006, as indicated below, from September 1, 2008 to December 1, 2008.

After all of the shares in the name of Park E and TF are revealed to have been trusted by the Plaintiff LA, the director of the tax office of Donggu, the director of the tax office, the director of the tax office, the director of the tax office, and the director of the tax office of Seogu, the director of the tax office, revoked the tax imposed on Y, respectively, and the director of the tax office, the director of the tax office of Donggu, notified the Plaintiff LA of the increased tax amount by adding the tax amount on the constructive dividend of Y and TF to the Plaintiff LA as stated below. The detailed details of the global income tax imposition disposition of this case against the Defendants are as follows (hereinafter referred to as the "detailed details of global income tax imposition" (hereinafter referred to as the "final correction disposition of each tax item"), the principal tax of the Plaintiff LA and the additional tax on the additional tax on August 8, 2011, Kim Jong-soo's correction disposition on Kim 12, 2011, the correction disposition against Plaintiff 10D on 21, 28101.28.

【Imposition of Global Income Tax】

(2) The following details are omitted:

[Ground for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, 12, 3-1, 2, 13, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, 12, and Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 13, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 13, Gap evidence 8, 17, 27, Gap evidence 20, 28-1, 2, 3, 25-1, 25-2, 1, 8-1, 2, and 8-1, 2, Eul evidence 10 through 16, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs

(1) On June 2006, the plaintiffs received the amount calculated by deducting the interest on the advance payment from 00 won in accordance with the agreement among major shareholders and management around 2006. Since the shareholders' meeting minutes held on August 7, 2006, which held on December 31, 2009 or on March 31, 2010, evaluate the net asset value of XX as 00 won in the net asset value of the plaintiffs' shares through reduction of capital, and agree to receive the amount calculated by deducting the advance payment interest on the advance payment from 000 won in the future, instead of receiving the advance payment from 00 won in the capital reduction amount, the amount calculated by deducting the amount of interest on the advance payment from 00 won in the capital reduction amount from 00 won in light of the principle that the plaintiffs did not deduct the amount of interest on the advance payment from 00 won in the capital reduction amount from 000 won in the actual amount of the above advance payment.

(2) The Defendants, while issuing a tax notice to the Plaintiffs, omitted matters required by law, such as the tax base and calculation basis of principal tax and additional tax, and thus, the instant disposition is procedurally unlawful.

B. The Defendants

The Plaintiffs evaluated the net asset value of XX at the time of the general meeting of shareholders as KRW 000 per share and agreed to receive the reduction of capital of KRW 000 and KRW 000 per share. In addition, the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the interest on the advance payment of bank loans for the purpose of raising the capital reduction. Since the above capital reduction resolution and the instant advance payment agreement are separate legal acts, the Plaintiffs should be deemed to have received the total amount of KRW 000 as a dividend. Accordingly, the instant disposition imposing the amount computed by deducting the acquisition value of stocks at the above KRW 00 is lawful.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Determination

A. According to Article 17(1) and (2) of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8144, Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “former Income Tax Act”), the value of the money and other property acquired by the stockholder due to a retirement of stocks or reduction of capital is deemed to have been distributed to the stockholder concerned as the amount in excess of the amount required for the acquisition of the stocks in question. Fictitious dividend is deemed to have been distributed to the stockholder in question. Fictitious dividend is the dividend income generated during the current year. According to Article 46 subparag. 4 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19890, Feb. 28, 2007), in the case of fictitious dividend, the date on which the decision on the retirement of stocks, reduction of capital or transfer of capital is made

B. In the instant case, with respect to 37,200 shares equivalent to 60% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares at the temporary shareholders’ meeting held on August 7, 2006 at the general meeting of 00, the amount per share is set at 000 won on the premise that the net asset value of XX is 00 won, and the date on which the effect of reduction of capital occurred as of September 9, 2006, which was decided to implement reduction of capital by voluntary and onerous retirement, is stated as above. According to the evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 4-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 7, the above facts are stated as follows: (i) the amount of 00 won per share capital reduction, such as the amount of 00 won per share paid at 00 won per share, (ii) the amount of 00% of the total amount of 00 won per share capital reduction agreement, and (iii) the amount of 00% of the total amount of 000 percent shares issued and outstanding shares.

그러나 한편 갑 제1 내지 7, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 21호증, 을 제5호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재와 제1심 증인 박GG, 이JJ의 각 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 모아 보면 ① XX의 대주주들인 원고 최AA, 김BB은 2006. 8. 7. 실질주주이자 실경영자 박GG, 대표이사 이HH과의 사이에, 신한은행 대출건은 주주총회를 거친 후 원고들(원고 최AA이 명의신탁한 박EE, 석FF의 주식을 포함한다. 이하 같다.) 지분 60%를 감자하는 조건으로 하고, 대출금은 대출시 신한은행으로부터 주주 개인의 통장으로 입금하며, XX와 원고 최AA, 김BB 사이의 차입금은 대출금이 주주 개인의 통장으로 입금된 후 정산하고, 선지급 이자 및 차입금 이자의 정산 기준일은 2006. 9. 15.로 하되, 정산기준일이 변경될 경우에는 당해 정산기준일 시점으로 선지급 이자는 6%, 차입금 이자는 10%로 하여 정산하는 것을 내용으로 하는 약정(갑 제11호증)을 하였는데, 여기서 '선지급 이자'라는 표현은 나중에 지급할 것을 선지급함에 따라 공제할 중간이자의 의미로 해석할 수 있고 피고들 주장과 같이 은행 대출금에 대한 이자의 의미로 보기는 어려운 점, ② XX에서 2006. 8.경 작성한 '감주주에 대한 의제배당' 계획서(갑 제7호증)에는 의제배당액 000원에서 원천징수세액과 개인별 차입금 및 '선지급기간' 1,292일간의 '선지급이자'를 각 공제한 금액을 원고들에게 지급 하는 것으로 기재된 사실, ③ XX의 실질주주이자 실경영자인 박GG는 동대구세무서 공무원 앞에서 진술한 문답서에서, XX의 주택분양사업 완료예정일인 2009. 12. 31.까지 사업이 완료될 것으로 보고 위 사업의 예상수익을 000원으로 보아 그 중 원고들 몫인 000원을 2009. 12. 31.까지 지급하기로 하였는데, 당초 2009. 12. 31. 지급하기로 한 배당금을 혹시 주주의 개인적인 문제로 회사에 문제가 제기될까봐 2006. 9. 15.에 정산하게 된 것이라고 진술하였고, 제1심의 증인신문절차에서도 세무 공무원 앞에서 위와 같이 진술한 것이 맞고 그것이 사실이라고 진술하면서, 2006.6.경 이미 대주주인 자신과 원고 최AA, 김BB 사이에서 원고들 측 지분 60%를 유상감자 하기로 약정하였다고 진술한 사실, ④ XX에서 작성한 '감주주식 배당진행 예정(안)'(갑 제21호증)에서는 2006. 6. 26.부터 그 달 30.까지 주식평가보고서를 작성하여 신한은행에 제출하기로 하고, 신한은행 대출은 그 해 7. 12. 내지 15. 실행하여 그 해 7. 13. 내지 20. 감자배당 가능한 것으로 기재된 점과 제1심 증인 이JJ이 회계법인에 XX의 기업가치평가를 의뢰한 것은 원고들과 박GG가 감자대금을 000원으로 합의한 이후라고 진술하고 있는 점을 볼 때, 2006. 6. 28. 작성된 회계법인의 기업가치 평가보고서(갑 제12호증)에 2006.경 XX의 기업가치를 최저 000원에서 최고 000원 정도로 평가하고 있지만, 이는 원고들 측과 박GG와의 감자약정 이후에 작성된 것으로 이를 기초로 원고들 측과 박GG가 2006. 8.경의 XX의 기업가치를 000원으로 평가하였다고 볼 수는 없는 점, ⑤ XX에서 작성한 '000대출 현황'(갑 제9호증)에서도 감자주주 의제배당액을 000원에서 원천징수 세액과 이 사건 선지급이자를 공제한 000원으로 기재되어 있는 사실, ⑥ 원고들은 2006. 9. 경 실제로 000원에서 이 사건 선지급 이자를 공제한 금액을 감자대금으로 지분에 따라 지급받은 점, ⑦ 만약 원고들이 2006. 9.경 지급받을 수 있는 감자대금이 000원이라면 XX가 그 대금 마련을 위하여 은행 대출을 받는다 하더라도 그 대출금의 이자를 원고들이 부담할 아무런 이유가 없고, 원고들 측과 박GG 등 사이의 어떤 합의서에도 원고들이 은행 대출이자를 부담한다는 내용의 기재는 없는 점, ⑧ 원고들 측은 XX의 직원에게 인장과 인감증명서 등을 주어 법무사를 통하여 2006. 8. 7. 자 임시주주총회 의사록과 합의서(갑 제10호증) 등을 작성하게 한 것으로 보이는 점 등의 사정을 알 수 있다.

위와 같은 사정에 비추어 보면, 원고들 측과 박GG는 2006. 6.경 원고들 지분 60%를 주식소각을 통해 감자하기로 하고 XX의 주택분양사업의 완료예정일인 2009. 12. 31.경의 XX의 순자산가치를 000원으로 추정한 다음, 2009. 12. 31. 지급 하여야 할 원고들의 지분 60%에 해당하는 감자대금 000원을 2006. 6. 19.경 먼저 지급하기로 하고, 그에 따라 공제할 연 6% 이율의 1292일에 상당하는 중간이자 상당액을 이 사건 선지급 이자로 하여 000원에서 이 사건 선지급 이자 000원을 공제한 금액을 갑자대금으로 지급하는 것으로 주주총회 결의 등을 하기로 약정하였는데{그 후 감자대금 지급일이 2006. 9.경으로 연기되어 중간이자 계산기간이 1292일에서 줄어들어야 할 것이나, XX가 주택분양대금을 모두 납부받아 이익을 창출하려면 당초 사업완료예정일보다 시일이 더 걸렬 수 있다는 점(제1심 증인 박GG의 증언) 등을 고려하여 이 사건 선지급 이자 기준일을 2006. 9. 15.로 정하면서도 금액은 그대로 둔 것으로 보인다. 그 약정 내용과 같은 주주총회 결의의 의사록을 작성하는 과정에서 감자대금 합계 000원의 기준일이 2009. 12. 31.인 것을 착오로 누락함에 따라 의사록 작성 등을 의뢰받은 법무사가 주주총회 일자인 2006. 8. 7.경 기준의 감자 대금이 합계 000원인 것으로 보고 이를 기초로 1주당 지급액을 000원( = 000원 ÷ 37,200주)인 것으로 기재함에 따라, 같은 내용의 합의서(갑 제10호증) 와 함께 주주총회 의사록이 실제 약정에 따른 결의 내용과 달리 잘못 작성되었으며, XX의 제무제표는 위 주주총회 의사록을 토대로 하여 XX가 원고들에게 감자대금으로 000원을 지급한 후 원고들로부터 이 사건 선지급 이자를 증여받은 것으로 회계처리를 한 것으로 봄이 상당하고, 이에 반하는 듯한 제1심 증인 박GG, 이JJ 의 각 증언 일부는 위 인정에 비추어 믿기 어렵다.

Therefore, under the principle of substantial taxation, a provisional shareholders' meeting on August 7, 2006 cannot be deemed to have been adopted as the content of the minutes, and as stated in the resolution of the plaintiffs, who are the actual shareholders, and Park GG, the part of the disposition in this case premised on the premise that the plaintiffs, as well as the actual shareholders, obtained prior payment interest of KRW 00 from the total amount of KRW 000, deducted from the total amount of KRW 000 ( = 000 - 000) as the price for capital reduction, shall be deemed to have been paid according to the share ratio [in the case of one share payment, = 00 won ( = 00 - 37,200) ± 37,200]]. Accordingly, the resolution for capital reduction was made. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs received the actual share payment, the plaintiffs' resolution was made on the premise that the plaintiffs received the total amount of KRW 00 as the price for capital reduction on September 2006, the defendants' assertion against the remainder of the claims by the defendants is without merit.

However, as alleged by the plaintiffs, there is no dispute between the parties that the reasonable tax amount in the case where the plaintiffs received the amount obtained by deducting the interest of the advance payment from the total amount of KRW 000 as the capital reduction amount, and that the amount is the same as the amount recognized by the plaintiffs' claims, so the part exceeding the part acknowledged by the plaintiffs' claims should be revoked.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all reasonable, and they are accepted, and they are decided as per the disposition by changing the judgment of the court of the first instance, including the expanded and modified claims in the trial.