It is not possible to evaluate the acquisition and exercise of preemptive rights as the same as the transfer of shares.

The provision that "the amount calculated by subtracting the value of conversion, etc. of stocks from the value of stocks at the time of conversion, etc. is not less than 100 million won," which is that the acquisition and exercise of preemptive rights cannot be assessed the same as the transfer of stocks on the ground that the transfer of converted stocks ultimately realize economic benefits.

2012Guhap1847 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AAAA

Head of the tax office

March 22, 2013

May 3, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On December 1, 2010, the Defendant revoked each disposition of KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000, and KRW 000, and KRW 000.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased part of the warrant certificates issued on December 14, 2004, through DD securities companies, as listed below, from among those listed in BB BB B B B B B B B B B B B B B C (hereinafter referred to as “BB B B B B B B C”) and those listed in BB B B B B B B B B B B B B B C, a KOSDAQ-listed corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of elevators and mining. On July 1, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired new shares issued on December 14, 2004 through DB B B B B B B B B B B C, a corporation (hereinafter referred to as “B B B B B B B B C”) by purchasing new shares as listed in the following table, and exercising the preemptive right to new shares issued on DD B B B B B B B B B B.:

(Omission)

B. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant obtained profits from the total market value of the shares acquired by the Plaintiff as a result of the exercise of preemptive rights, excluding the acquisition amount of preemptive rights and the acquisition fee of preemptive rights, and determined that the transaction was “transaction without any justifiable reason in light of the practice of transaction” pursuant to Article 42(1)3 and (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), and imposed upon the Plaintiff KRW 000,000 as stated in the purport of the claim as gift tax attributed to the Plaintiff in 207 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 28, 201, but was dismissed on January 19, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1 through 6, 8, 9, and Eul 1 through 7, and 18 (including family number, if any)

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s economic benefits derived from the acquisition and exercise of the preemptive right is unlawful in imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff, on the grounds that the economic benefits are identical in nature to the gains from transfer of listed stocks, and that no transfer income tax is imposed on the gains from transfer of listed stocks.

2) As a result of the Plaintiff’s assumption of the risk of a change in the stock price of the company that issued preemptive rights, the Plaintiff gains profits from the increase in the stock price of the issuing company, this constitutes “a case where there is a justifiable reason under the practice of trading” under Article 42(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and thus, is not subject

3) Even if a gift tax is levied, it is unreasonable to impose penalty tax, as it is judged that the Plaintiff is not subject to gift tax for the above reasons.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) First, since the Plaintiff’s profits are identical to the gains from transfer of listed stocks, Article 42(1)3 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “for profits acquired from transactions that increase or decrease the corporation’s capital, such as conversion of stocks by preemptive rights, and above the standard prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such profits shall be deemed as the value of donated property to the person who has acquired such profits,” and Article 31-9(1)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “Where the amount calculated by subtracting the value of conversion, etc. from the value of stocks at the time of conversion, etc. is above 100 million won, the said amount shall be deemed as the corresponding amount.” This is because there is no relation between the acquisition value of preemptive rights and the value of stocks at the time of conversion, which is subject to taxation on the difference between the acquisition value of new stocks and the value of stocks at the time of conversion, and it is ultimately impossible to evaluate the acquisition and exercise of preemptive rights as equal to that of transfer

2) 다음으로 거래의 관행상 정당한 사유가 있다고 인정되는 경우에 해당하는지에 관하여 살피건대， 상속세및증여세법 제42조 제3항은 "제1항의 규정을 적용함에 있어 거래의 관행상 정당한 사유가 있다고 인정되는 경우에는 특수관계에 있는 자 외의 자간에는 이를 적용 하지 아니한다"고 규정하고 있는 바 앞서 인정한 사실과 앞서 든 각 증거 및 을 제8， 9， 10，15호증의 각 기재에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 ① 신주인수권 발행 당시 원고의 아버지 정OOO이 BBB제강 및 BBB레일의 대표이사였고 정AA과 그 특수관계인이 OO레일의 주식 44.18%를 보유하고 있었던 점，② BBB제강의 최대주주는 2006. 3.경、주식회사 OOOO로 변경되었고， 정AA은 2006. 9. 8.경 자신이 보유하고 있던 BBB 레일의 주식을 주식회사 CCC에 양도하였는데， 그로부터 약 10개월 또는 5개월 후에 원고가 BBB제강의 신주인수권을 취득하였던 점，③ 원고에게 신주인수권을 양도한 이OO， 하OOO은 2007.경 정AA과 특수관계에 있던 주식회사 OO피앤씨의 주식을 각 522，450 주씩 보유하다가 양도한 적이 있는 점，④ 원고는 신주인수권을 DDD증권 주식회사를 통해 취득하긴 하였으나 공개시장에서 불특정 다수간에 이루어진 거래라고 보이지 아니하는 점，⑤ BBB제강이 발행한 신주인수권의 주당 행사가격은 0000원인데， BBB제강의 주가는 종가기준으로 원고가 신주인수권을 취득한 2007. 1. 24. 000원으로 주당 주가와 행사가격의 차액이 000원이고， BBB레일이 발행한 신주인수권의 주당 행사가격은 000원인 데，BBB레일의 주가는 종가기준으로 원고가 신주인수권을 취득한 2007. 7. 24. 000원， 2007. 8. 13. 0000원， 2007. 9. 6. 1，0000원， 2007. 9. 20. 0000원으로 주당 주가와 행사가 격의 차액이 000원에서 0000원에 이르러 주가의 변동위험성을 감안하더라도 그 차액의 규모가 적지 않은 점，⑥ 이후 원고가 신주인수권을 행사할 때에는 BBB제강의 주가는 2007. 9. 20. 000원， 2007. 10. 5. 0000원이었고， BBB레일의 주가는 2007. 7. 30. 0000원， 2007. 8. 16. 000원， 2007. 9. 7. 0000원， 2007. 9. 21. 0000원으로 가파르게 상승하였던 점에 비추어 보면，원고는 이 사건 신주인수권을 취득한 데에 거래의 관행상 정당한 사유가 있다고 볼 수 없으므로， 이 부분 원고의 주장도 이유 없다.

3) Lastly, in cases where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a taxpayer's intentional and negligent act, and a tax payment, without justifiable reason, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the penalty tax under tax law is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the Act, which does not constitute a justifiable reason that does not constitute a violation of the duty (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004), and even considering the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that there exists a justifiable reason for the failure to pay the gift tax to the Plaintiff, and this part of the Plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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