Seoul High Court 2007Nu2090 (Law No. 11, 2007)

It is reasonable to interpret that the acquisition value of a specific bond includes an amount equivalent to premium.

It is reasonable to exclude the amount of purchase equivalent to the sum of the issue value and the surface interest from the date of issuance until the date of commencing the inheritance, and the premium of the specific bonds from the taxable object of inheritance if the specific bonds are not the holder of the specified bonds themselves.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

쇠鹬 쇠鹬 3000 쇠鹬 3000

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3 (2) 3 (c) and (d) of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007) stipulate "transaction of specific bonds issued between December 31, 1998 and December 31, 1998" as "transaction of specific bonds under Article 160 of the Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 5493 of Dec. 31, 1997)." Article 9 of the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (amended by Act No. 5493 of Dec. 31, 1997) provides that "No financial institution may verify the source, etc. of funds notwithstanding the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, and any tax liability shall be imposed on the holder of specific bonds by purchasing them as taxation data, and no tax shall be imposed on them prior to the purchase of such bonds."

Under the principle of no taxation without law, the interpretation of tax laws shall be interpreted in accordance with the text of the law unless there are special circumstances, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret without reasonable grounds. However, where it is necessary to clarify the meaning through mutual interpretation between the laws and regulations, it shall be permitted to make a combined interpretation in view of the legislative purport and purpose within the scope that does not undermine the legal stability and predictability pursued by the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Du4438, Feb. 15, 2008)

In full view of the legislative purport and contents of Article 9 of the Addenda to the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, and the fact that it is difficult to distinguish the purchase fund of a specific bond from the case of inheritance or donation, and that it is difficult to distinguish the specific bond itself from the case of inheritance or donation, and that there is no reasonable ground to discriminate between the two in recognition of the special taxation for the holders, etc., the funds purchased the bonds shall be subject to the special taxation of inheritance tax, etc., regardless of whether the obligation of the holder to pay inheritance tax, etc. before the purchase of the bonds is established. In this case, it is reasonable to view that the funds purchased are included in the funds of purchase as the price paid for the purchase of the specific bond.

The court below held that although the plaintiffs are not the holders of specific bonds stipulated in Article 9 of the Addenda to the former Act on Real Name Financial Transactions, if they succeed to the specific bonds itself, the non-taxable practice has been established with respect to the imposition of inheritance tax on the purchase price equivalent to the sum of the issue price and interest on the surface from the issue date to the commencement date of inheritance, and also, the premium of specific bonds of this case is merely the price paid for the purchase of specific bonds of this case, and it is difficult to view that the amount equivalent to the price is converted into the specific bonds of this case and the transfer is to be made to the plaintiffs, and it is not appropriate that the whole purchase price of specific bonds of this case is excluded from the inheritance tax subject to inheritance tax, it is reasonable in the conclusion that the disposition of this case is unlawful, and therefore, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles on specific bonds stipulated in Article 9

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.