Seocho 2010west 1808 (Law No. 31, 2010)

The acquisition price shall not be deemed as the acquisition price, less the net debt of the bank from the agreed value of the acquisition price of the company.

It is difficult to see that the net asset amount obtained by subtracting the debt from the total assets of the company as the acquisition price of the company, and it is deemed that the transferee agrees to take over the bank net debt with the intention of receiving the money from the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property and cancelling the collateral of the person who has pledged his/her property to secure another's property. Therefore, it is reasonable

Article 96 of the Income Tax Act

2010Gudan24169 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing capital gains tax

Park XX

Head of Guro Tax Office

May 9, 2012

June 13, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing capital gains tax of KRW 000 for the year 2008 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2010 is revoked.

1. Details of disposition;

A. Park Jong-A entered into an agreement on the transfer or acquisition of shares by a construction corporation (i.e., stock sales contract; hereinafter referred to as the "stock acquisition contract") with the non-party company on March 31, 2008 between 0 and 00 won as representative director of the company, and (ii) with the non-party company on May 26, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "this agreement"). The agreement on the acquisition of shares and the payment method of the non-party company on May 26, 2008 was 110,40 shares, 12,80 shares, 12,80 shares, DD 14,400 shares, 9,60 shares, 160 shares and 100 shares, 20 shares transfer or transfer of shares to the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company") on the premise that the non-party company's shareholders were 00 shares shares and 00 shares transfer value per share.

D. The Plaintiff filed an objection on April 7, 2010, but was dismissed, and filed an appeal on May 27, 2010, but was dismissed on September 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

'The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

① The instant agreement reached an agreement on KRW 000,000, which is the net asset amount obtained by subtracting the liabilities from the assets by evaluating the total assets of the Nonparty company as KRW 000,000, as the acquisition price of the Nonparty company, and thus, the amount of KRW 00 shall be deducted from the transfer

② Under the agreement of this case, “B did not accept the obligation of the ParkB with respect to KRW 000 of the net debt of the non-party company, but did not accept it, and as a result, LA paid KRW 000 as a joint and several surety. Since LA thereafter won in the claim for indemnity against the non-party company, it was in favor of the non-party company, but there was no possibility of recovery of the amount of indemnity, so the amount of subrogation should be deducted from the total amount of transfer of the shares, so there was no possibility of realizing the amount of indemnity.”

(1) Upon entering into the instant corporate acquisition contract with the SeoB, Park Jae-A agreed to deliver documents necessary for acquisition and transfer of management rights in exchange for the balance payment (the contract was made out of 000 won for acquisition and transfer price on a deposit basis). Since only 000 won was paid on the date of the contract, he did not receive the intermediate payment and the balance, and thus he did not receive the intermediate payment and the balance, and thereafter, entered into the instant agreement, which is an agreement setting forth specific methods for payment and payment of transfer price, with the SeoB on May 26, 2008.

(2) The content of the instant arrangement concluded between the transferor ParkA and the transferee SeoB is as follows.

The total transfer and takeover expenses of the non-party company shall be KRW 000.

2. The down payment of 00 won shall be paid to the transferor on March 31, 2008.

On May 26, 2008, when the transferee pays to the transferor the remainder part payment of KRW 000 to the transferor, the transferor shall provide the transferee with all documents related to the transfer of shares and change of executive officers.

4. The transferee will take over the transferee’s net obligations of the transferor. When a person related to the bank’s net obligations pays 000 won to the transferor after the date, the transferee shall immediately provide the person related to the obligation with the obligation with a document cancellation for any real estate offered as security.

The balance of 00 won shall be paid immediately to the transferor, after settling the debts other than the bank obligations at the time of three months from the time when the public summons was publicly announced in the newspaper after the change of the officer of the registry.

After the change of officers and stockholders, the guarantor of the mutual aid association and the bank in which the transferor is a joint and several sureties shall be replaced by the transferee.

(3) On May 26, 2008, SB paid 2000 won of intermediate payments to ParkB on May 26, 2008, and paid 000 won of the rest part payments on May 28, 200, and then took office as the representative director of the non-party company upon receipt of documents concerning change of executive officers from ParkB on that day.

(4) However, after paying the intermediate payment of KRW 000, SeoB failed to perform its obligation to take over the net debt of KRW 000 and to pay the balance of KRW 000,000. On September 10, 2008, SeoB sent a written notice to the effect that, as a representative director of the non-party company, the settlement items of the total amount of KRW 000,000 cannot be paid, such as the shortage of contract for underwriting, the shortage of existing employees’ wages in arrears, the advance payment received at the time of the non-party company’s representative director’s employment, and the amount of indemnity claimed by the subcontractor.

(5) Meanwhile, on August 11, 2008, the non-party company requested one bank of the shares of the non-party company, the creditors of the non-party company, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, and Park Guarantee Fund, the joint and several surety, to perform the joint and several liability obligations. Park Jong shall pay to the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund as joint and several surety each amounting to KRW 00 on December 26, 2008, and KRW 00 on May 11, 2009, respectively. The non-party company repaid to Han Bank the amount of KRW 00 on November 19, 2008 (the set-off method with the new deposit claim) and KRW 00 on January 12, 2009 (total amount of the subrogated payment).

(6) On April 23, 2009, ParkA filed a lawsuit against the non-party company as a trustee guarantor who has the remainder remaining after offsetting the loan principal and interest obligation of the non-party company against Han Bank as KRW 000,000,000, and was sentenced to a favorable judgment from the court of first instance on April 23, 2009, and the non-party company appealed thereto, but the said judgment became final and conclusive as the withdrawal of appeal.

(7) ParkA collected on August 11, 2009 the total amount of KRW 000 in the compulsory execution procedure regarding the corporeal movables of the non-party company with the above final judgment as the executive title.

(8) On September 23, 2008, the obligation to pay the principal and interest of loan to Han Bank Co., Ltd. was extinguished on January 12, 2009 in the course of offsetting the foregoing secured installment savings claim (00 won), the payment of deposit money (00 won) based on the credit guarantee agreement of the Credit Guarantee Fund, offsetting the deposit claims of ParkA on November 19, 2008, offsetting the deposit claims of ParkA on January 19, 2008, and repayment of ParkA on January 12, 2009 (00 won).

(9) On November 17, 2005, when the non-party company's obligations to Han Bank Co., Ltd. were designated as Won-si, the right to collateral security was set at the maximum debt amount of KRW 000 with respect to GATT 132, 133, 132-1, and nine parcels. On January 12, 2009, the right to collateral security was revoked on the date when the obligations to Han Bank Co., Ltd. were fully extinguished.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence prior to dispute, evidence No. 2 through 28, evidence No. 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

(1) In calculating gains from transfer, which is the tax base of capital gains tax, the actual transaction price refers to the actual transaction price rather than the market price that reflects the objective exchange value, and the actual transaction price itself or at the time of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19465, Feb. 10, 201). In addition, the Income Tax Act adopts the so-called principle of confirmation of the right to taxable income, deeming the income as realizing the income if the right that is the basis of the income has not been actually realized even if there is no income. However, even if a claim that is the basis of the income has occurred, if it is objectively apparent that the claim subject to the income becomes impossible to recover due to the debtor’s bankruptcy, etc. and it is objectively apparent that the income subject to the income subject to the income tax has no possibility of realizing the income in the future, and thus, it cannot be imposed as taxable income. In such a case, it should be clarified that the taxpayer has no income to assert and increase such circumstance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 187207Du14, Jan. 14, 2014.

(2) The transfer value under the instant agreement (the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 1)

"위 인정한 사실들과 위 각 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 각 사정 즉, ㉠ 이 사건 약정 당시 박AA와 서BB 사이에 소외 회사의 채무 전체에 관한 정리가 이루어지지는 않았으나 금융기관에 대한 채무와 금융기관에 대한 자산의 평가는 일응 이루어져 금융기관에 대한 채무에서 자산을 공제한 순채무를 000원으로 산정한 것으로 보이는 점, ㉡ 그런데 박AA와 서BB는 금융기관에 대한 순채무 000원을 인수대금 산정에 있어서 공제 요인으로 삼는 통상적인 방식을 취하지 않고{이와 같은 공제 방식은 기업인수계약서 제13조(특약사항) 제8항도 예정하고 있는 점에 비추어 볼 때, 만약 금융기관에 대한 자산과 부채를 제외한 소외 회사의 자산가치를 000원으로 보고 금융기관 순채무를 000원으로 보았다면 인수대금을 000원으로 정했을 것으로 보인다}, 양도가액을 000원으로 하고, 서BB가박AA의 은행 순채무 000원을 인수하는 것'으로 양도가액 000원 중 000원의 지급에 갈음하는 듯하게 정하는 다소 이해 하기 어려운 방식을 채택한 점, ㉢ 은행 순채무 000원의 채무자는 소외 회사이지 박 AA가 아니므로 이는 일응 소외 회사의 은행 순채무에 관한 박AA의 연대보증채무를 서BB가 인수하는 것에 관한 조항으로 보이는바, 그렇게 볼 경우 약정서 말미인 위 <6>항에서 별도로 정하고 있는 연대보증인의 교체에 관한 조항과 중복되는 측면이 있는 점, ㉣ 주식양수를 통하여 기업의 경영권을 인수를 함에 있어 기업의 금융기관 채무에 관한 양도인의 연대보증채무를 양수인이 인수한다고 하더라도 이를 두고 곧바로 해당 기업의 금융기관에 대한 순채무액 상당의 인수대금을 지급한 것으로 평가하는 것은 이례적인 경우에 해당하는 점, ㉤ 그런데 약정서 <4>항은 은행 순채무의 이해관계인이 박AA에게 000원을 지급할 때, 그가 제공했던 담보를 양수인이 해제하기로 하는 조항을 포함하고 있고, 여기서 이해관계인이란 앞서 본 권FF을, 그가 제공했던 담보란 앞서 본 채권최고액 000원의 근저당권을 각 의미하는 것으로 보이는데, 이 조항이 이행될 경우 박AA는 서BB로부터 계약금 000원, 중도금 000원, 잔금 000원을 받는 것 외에 추가로 권FF으로부터 000원을 지급받게 되는 점(원고는 이 사건 변론에서 이 사건 약정서 작성 당시 은행 순채무 000원 중 000원의 실질채무자가 권FF이고 권FF이 채무를 상환하지 않은 상태였다는 취지로 주장했다가 이 법원의 석명준비명령이 있고 난 후에 권FF의 채권자는 박AA 자신이고, 이 사건 약정서 작성 당시 권FF의 박AA에 대한 채무 000원의 상환은 이미 이뤄졌다고 하면서 종전 주장을 변경했는데, 이 사건 약정서 <4>항은 채무관계인이 박AA에게 000원을 지급할 시점을 미래로 설정하고 있는 것이 명백하므로 위 변경 후 주장은 받아들일 수 없다), ㉥ 이러한 조항은 박AA가 000원을 추가로 지급받으면서도 권FF의 물상보증인으로서의 지위를 소멸시키는 이익을 부여하는 것으로 박AA와 서BB 사이에서는 이를 양도가액 000원과 통일한 가치로 평가한 것으로도 보이는 점, ㉦ 은행 순채무 000원에 관한 담보인 권FF 소유 부동산에 설정된 채권최고액 000원의 근저당권이 해제되면, 소외 회사는 위 근저당권이 없는 은행 순채무 000원을 부담하게 되므로, 그러한 의미에서 서BB가 순채무 000원을 인수한다는 조항을 이해할 여지도 있는 점, ㉧ 결국 박AA는 권FF으로부터 000원을 수령했고, 권FF이 제공한 담보 도 말소된 점, ㉨ 이 사건 기업인수계약 제13조(특약사항) 제1 내지 5항에 의하면, 소외 회사의 자산 중 양도의 대상에 포함되지 않고 박AA에게 귀속되는 것으로 처리한 것이 적지 않은데 이는 발행주식 100%의 양수도에 의한 기업인수도와 어울리지 않는 측면이 있고, 박AA에게 귀속되는 부분은 박AA가 이 사건 주식의 양도를 통하여 얻는 이익으로 평가될 여지도 없지 않은 점을 모두 종합하면, 이 사건 약정은 소외 회사의 총자산을 000원으로 부채를 000원으로 하여 자산에 부채를 차감한 순자산금액인 000원을 소외 회사의 인수대금으로 합의한 것이 아니라 소외 회사의 은행 순채무가 000원으로 정산되기는 했으나 박AA가 소외 회사를 위한 물상보증인인 권FF으로부터 000원을 수령하고, 권FF이 설정했던 근저당권은 말소시킬 목적에서 이와 같은 조건의 성취를 인수대금 000원의 지급과 같은 가치로 평가하여 인수대금은 이 사건 약정서에서 기재된 바와 같이 000원으로 약정한 것으로 봄이 타당하고, 000원이 바로 양도가액에 해당한다.",이와 다른 전제에 선 원고의 ① 주장은 이유 없다.

(3) Whether it is possible to realize income equivalent to the amount of subrogated payment of this case (the plaintiff's 2)

SB did not take over KRW 000 as a net debt of the Bank of LB that it had agreed to take over under the instant agreement, and as a result, LB paid KRW 000 in total to Han Bank and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund as joint and several surety of the non-party company. However, as seen in the foregoing paragraph (2) above, it is reasonable to deem that the portion equivalent to the remainder of the transfer price under the instant agreement amounting to KRW 00 was paid by LBA upon receiving KRW 000 from the KF and cancelling the collateral provided by the KF. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the remainder of the transfer price under the instant agreement was paid by LBA was recovered from the KF and the income is realized. However, it is not equivalent to the remainder of the transfer price of KRW 00,000,000, which is reasonable and reasonable to deem that the remainder of the transfer price of KRW 00,000,000, which is subject to taxation.

설령 위와 같이 보지 않음에 따라 서BB가 은행 순채무 000원을 인수하지 않아 박AA가 000원의 대위변제를 하게 됨에 따라 인수대금 000원 상당이 미지급된 상태라 보더라도, 이 사건 대위변제금이 소외 회사에 대한 구상 또는 서BB에 대한 손해배상을 통하여 회수될 가능성이 없어 이 사건 대위변제금 상당의 소득 실현 이 불가능하게 됐는지에 관해 살펴보면, 앞서 본 사실관계와 위 각 증거들에 의하여 알 수 있는 다음의 각 사정 즉, ㉠ 원고는 이 사건 변론종결에 즈음하여 비로소 박AA가 소외 회사에 대하여 이 사건 소제기 1년도 더 전인 2009. 8. 11.경 동산강제경매를 통하여 000원이 넘는 돈을 추심했음을 밝혔는데, 이는 그때까지의 원고 주장에 명백히 반하는 사실인 점, ㉡ 이 법원의 석명준비명령에 따라 원고가 제출한, 서BB를 피고인으로 하는 관련 형사사건의 제1심 판결서에 위와 같은 추심에 관한 기재가 있음에 따라 원고는 불가피하게 위와 같은 추심사실을 밝히게 된 것으로 보이는 점, ㉢ 위 형사사건의 제2심 판결에서도 이 사건 기업인수계약을 둘러싸고 서BB의 절도, 횡령 등으로 박AA가 입은 피해액이 민사상의 강제집행을 통하여 회복될 가능성이 높다고 본 점, ㉣ 그런데도 박AA는 서BB를 상대로 위와 같은 대위변제금 상당의 손해배상을 구하는 소송을 제기했다는 자료를 제출하지 않는 점, ㉤ 소외 회사는 2009. 11. 23. 폐업했고 소외 회사나 서BB 모두 자신의 명의로 된 부동산이나 금융기관에 대한 채권이 없으며, 다액의 금융기관 채무(소외 회사는 000원의 채무 서BB는 000원의 주택담보대출채무, 000원의 보증채무)를 부담하고 있는 사실이 인정되나[갑 제18 내지 21호증(각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재, 이 법원의 영등포세무서장, 국토해양부장관, 서초구청장, 전국은행연합회장에 대한 각 사실조회결과], 서BB는 2010. 10. 29. 우리투자증권에만 000원의 채무를 보증한 적이 있고 2011. 12. 8. 현재 그에 관한 연체액은 없는 것에 비추어 상당한 재력이 있을 가능성을 배제할 수 없는 점을 모두 고려하면, 이 사건 대위변제금에 관한 구상 또는 손해 배상청구가 사실상 불가능하다는 취지의 원고 주장은 명백히 사실에 반하는 주장이다.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is objectively apparent that it is impossible to recover the remainder of the subrogated payment, excluding the amount equivalent to the above collection amount, out of the total amount of the subrogated payment, from an objective point of view (the above circumstance alone is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s failure to pay the remainder of KRW 000,000 at the time of the instant disposition following pre-assessment review, and on the premise that it is impossible to recover the said amount. However, the other party to the claim for compensation or damages equivalent to the above subrogated payment can be the non-party company as well as SeoB, and the contract for corporate takeover of this case is reserved to settle the balance, and the amount to be settled on the ground that BB fails to pay KRW 00,00,000, and thus, it is difficult to further conclude that it is impossible to collect the amount equivalent to the subrogated payment of this case from the transfer price, and considering the fact that Park has been seeking the amount corresponding to the half of the subrogated payment after the instant disposition).

On a different premise, the first-party Plaintiff’s assertion 2 cannot be seen as a mother or acceptance.

(4) Sub-determination

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.