Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11092 (No. 29, 2010)

Cho High Court Decision 2004west0650 ( November 11, 2004)

not include the shares transferred to the borrower under a share lending contract when determining a major shareholder;

The lending and lending shares transferred to the borrower according to a stock lending contract is not included in the "stocks of the juristic person in which the shareholder, etc. holds as of the base date," and even if the right to receive a refund of the shares or dividends from the borrower is reserved, this is merely the obligatory right of the lender to the borrower.

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

1.The decision of the first instance shall be revoked.

2. The defendant on December 1, 2003 KRW 497,735,740 for the transfer income tax of 2000 belonging to the plaintiff on December 1, 2003

The imposition disposition shall be revoked.

3. The total costs of the litigation shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 200, the Plaintiff transferred 50,233 shares issued in 3,234,727,200 shares of △△, a stock company with the Association-registered corporation (hereinafter referred to as “△△”) through the Association brokerage market (hereinafter referred to as “transfer shares”) to 3,234,727,20 shares.

B. Accordingly, on December 1, 2003, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 497,735,740 of the transfer income tax for the year 2000 based on the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, on the ground that the Plaintiff owned the △△△ Technology Stocks (the share amounting to 11,050, Nov. 13, 199, the share amounting to 110,500, after being divided to 100,000 shares) in excess of KRW 10 billion that falls under the major shareholder under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes as of the end of the business year immediately before the transfer date of the instant shares ( December 31, 1999).

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) Plaintiff

원고는 1999. 9. 16. ♤♤증권 주식회사(이하 ♤♤증권이라 한다)와 사이에 △△기술 주식 10,000주(1999. 11. 13. 액면분할로 100,000주가 되었다. 이하 이 사건 대차주식 이라 한다)에 대한 주식대차계약을 맺고 ♤♤증권에게 그 소유권을 이전해주었으므로, 1999. 12. 31. 당시 원고가 소유 중인 △△기술 주식은 10,500주(액면분할전 1,050주), 시가 총액 25억 4,100만원으로서 100억 원 미만이다. 따라서 1999. 12. 31. 기준으로 원고는 구 소득세법(2000. 12. 29. 법률 제6292호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제94조, 구 소득세법 시행령(2000. 12. 29. 대통령령 제17032호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제157조 제4항 제2호 소정의 △△기술의 대주주에 해당하지 않으므로, 이 사건 대차주식이 원고의 소유임을 전제로 원고를 △△기술의 대주주로 보아 부과한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

2) Defendant

In light of the fact that all rights, such as voting rights, and economic interests, etc. of the lending and borrowing shares of this case substantially belong to the plaintiff, the actual owner of the lending and lending shares of this case during the lending period is the plaintiff, and the disposition of this case that the plaintiff is deemed as a major shareholder of △

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

As of December 31, 1999, the Plaintiff’s shares of △△ Technology, other than the loan shares of this case, are 10,500 shares (1,050 shares prior to the split-off of face value) and the total market price is 2,54,100,000 won (the Plaintiff does not constitute a major shareholder of △△ Technology). However, if the total market price of the loan shares of this case (24.2 billion won), including the total market price of the loan shares of this case (24.2 billion won), the total market price of △△ Technology shares owned by the Plaintiff is 10 billion won or more (26.74 billion won) and the Plaintiff falls under the major shareholder of △△ Technology, and there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, in determining whether the Plaintiff falls under the major shareholder of △△ Technology under Article 94 of the former Income Tax Act and Article 157(4)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act

Article 94 (4) 4 of the former Income Tax Act provides that "income accrued from the transfer of stocks not listed on the Korea Stock Exchange, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree, shall be taxable income, and Article 157 (5) 2 and 1 (c) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "the stocks that are transferred through the Association brokerage market by major shareholders of a corporation other than stock-listed corporations, etc." are "the stocks that are transferred through the Association brokerage market", while Article 157 (4) 2 (hereinafter "Article 94 (4) 2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides that "one stockholder and other stockholders in cases where the total market value of the stocks of the relevant corporation owned by one stockholder and other stockholders as of the end of the business year immediately preceding the business year to which the date of transfer of stocks belongs is at least 10 billion won."

In full view of the legislative intent and text of the provision of this case, and the concept of "ownership" under the provision of this case, unless there are special provisions in the former Income Tax Act, the same interpretation as civil law is consistent with the legal stability and the principle of strict interpretation that requires no taxation without law, barring any special circumstances. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the lender has transferred the ownership of the shares to the borrower during the lending period and allow the borrower to use them and the borrower has agreed to return the shares of the same kind and kind to the lender at the end of the lending period, and that the lending shares transferred to the borrower under the so-called "share lending contract" is not included in the "stocks of the juristic person in question as of the base date." Even if the borrower reserveds the right to receive early refund of the lending shares from the lender or the dividends, etc. accruing from the lending shares during the lending period, this does not affect the interpretation of the above provision, since it is merely a secured right against the lender.

그런데, 갑 제4호증 내지 제7호증, 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 갑 제10호증의 각 기재에 변 론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 1999. 9. 16. ♤♤증권과 사이에 원고 소유의 이 사건 대차주식에 관하여 주식대차계약을 체결하고, 1999. 9. 20. 차주인 ♤♤증권에게 이 사건 대차주식을 교부하고 명의개서를 하여 준 사실, 위 주식대차계약에 따라 ♤♤ 증권은 대차기간(1999. 9. 20.부터 2000. 3. 20.까지) 동안 이 사건 대차주식의 처분권 한과 그 처분으로 인한 소득을 보유하게 되고, 원고에 대하여 대차수수료 지급의무와 대차기간 종료시 이 사건 대차주식과 동종 ・ 동량의 주식 반환의무를 지게 되는 사실을 알 수 있는바, 이러한 사실관계를 앞서 본 법리에 비추어 살펴보면, 이 사건 대차주식은 주식대차계약에 의하여 1999. 9. 20. 차주인 ♤♤증권에 소유권이 이전되었고, 1999. 12. 31. 현재 그 처분권 및 처분으로 인한 소득이 차주인 ♤♤증권에 귀속되는 상태였으므로, 원고가 이 사건 조항에서 규정하는 1999. 12. 31. 현재 △△기술의 대주주에 해당하는지 여부를 판단함에 있어 이 사건 대차주식은 원고가 소유하는 주식에 포함시킬 수 없다고 할 것이다.

Therefore, the instant disposition that imposed the Plaintiff on the premise that the lending and borrowing shares of this case at the time of December 31, 1999 are owned by the Plaintiff as a major shareholder of △△ technology is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, and it is so revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition.