Cho High-depth 2014Gu0646 (No. 22, 2014)

A corporation’s transfer of low price to a person with a special relationship through a bypass transfer after its own stocks are acquired falls under the regulations on wrongful calculation.

A corporation’s transfer of low price to a person with a special relationship through a bypass transfer after its own stocks are acquired falls under the regulations on wrongful calculation.

Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act

Daegu District Court 2014Guhap23606

N

O Head of tax office

on October 24, 2016

on December 22, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On October 1, 2013, the notice of change in the amount of income of KRW 173,290,890 (the sum of KRW 44,619,810 forG and KRW 128,671,080 for D) against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. GG Co., Ltd. was established on Apr. 11, 200 for the purpose of manufacturing and selling chemical fibers, and changed its trade name to HH of the Co., Ltd. on Nov. 1, 2005 by absorbing HH on Nov. 1, 2005 (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

나. 원고는 2004. 3. 31.~2005. 10. 18. 다음과 같이 합계 16,700주, 84,500,000원 상당의 자기주식을 취득하였다(이하 위 주식을 '이 사건 주식', 아래 표의 매도인들을 'QQ 등'이라 한다).다. 이후 원고는 2008. 3. 21. 이 사건 주식을 WW, EE(이하 'WW 등'이라한다)에게 매도하였고, WW 등은 같은 달 26. 이 사건 주식을 다시 원고의 임직원인 DD, GG(이하 'DD 등'이라 한다)에게 매도하였다. 위 각 거래의 상세 내역은다음과 같다(을 제10호증의 1 내지 5). 라. 피고는 2011. 6.경 원고에 대한 주식변동조사를 실시하여, 원고가 이 사건 주식을 WW 등에게 매도하고, WW 등이 이를 다시 DD 등에게 매도한 것이 특수관계자간 우회거래를 통한 저가양도에 해당한다고 판단하였다.

E. In accordance with Article 35 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, and Article 88 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant, at the time of the transfer of the instant shares on March 21, 2008, calculated corporate tax by adding the difference between the market price of 57,636,30 won (evaluation as KRW 34,589 per share) and the transaction price of KRW 83,50,000 in gross income and correcting corporate tax of KRW 494,136,300 in gross income, and imposed gift tax to D, etc. by reducing the amount of KRW 173,290,890 (the “other dispute amount of disposal of income as a outflow from the company,” excluding the market price of KRW 320,845,410 (the “amount of disposal of income as a gift from the company”) to the Defendant on March 29, 2013.

G. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of change in the amount of income (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff regarding the key amount of KRW 173,290,890, which is the Plaintiff’s income amount for the business year of 2008 (=D’s KRW 128,671,080 + GG’s KRW 44,619,810).

H. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed a request for adjudication on December 20, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition on September 22, 2014. Each entry in Gap's 1, 2, and Eul's 1, 2, 10, and 11 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares constitutes an acquisition of treasury stocks in violation of Article 341 of the Commercial Act, which is a mandatory law, and thus null and void. The Plaintiff’s sale of the instant shares on March 21, 2008 and W, etc. (hereinafter “sale of the instant shares”) on March 26, 2008 is also null and void. The disposition of the instant shares conducted under the premise that the sale of the instant shares is effective. B. related Acts and subordinate statutes are unlawful.

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) In principle, Article 341 of the former Commercial Act (amended by Act No. 10600, Apr. 14, 201; hereinafter referred to as the “former Commercial Act”) stipulates that the acquisition of treasury stocks shall be exceptionally prohibited for general and preventive purposes, as well as cases where the acquisition of treasury stocks is permitted explicitly in Articles 341, 341-2 and 342-2 of the former Commercial Act or the Securities and Exchange Act, such as where a company acquires treasury stocks without compensation or where it is obviously impossible to endanger the foundation of the company or undermine the interests of shareholders, such as where it acquires treasury stocks on its own account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da10640, Jun. 26, 200).

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares constitutes the acquisition of treasury stocks under the former Commercial Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the acquisition of the Plaintiff’s shares constitutes an exception to the permission of acquisition of treasury stocks under the former Commercial Act or other Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares is null and void as it violates Article 341 of the former Commercial Act, and the sale of the instant shares based thereon should also be deemed null and void. 2) Whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant shares constitutes an income subject to imposition of income, such as D, should be deemed as an economic aspect, and it is sufficient to determine that the Plaintiff is able to enjoy it while controlling and managing the benefits in reality and has a tax-bearing capacity, and the legal assessment of the causal relationship, which has derived from the said income, does not necessarily necessarily require legitimate and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu5303, Dec. 10, 191; 94Nu58575, Nov. 10, 1995).

앞서 본 사실로부터 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정을 모두 종합하면, 비록 원고가 QQ 등으로부터 이 사건 주식을 매수한 계약이 무효이기는 하지만, 원고는 이 사건 주식의 소유권을 행사하고 양도하는데 사실상의 장애가 없었던 것으로 인정되고, 원고가 DD 등에게 이 사건 주식을 양도하여 DD 등이 이를 실질적으로 지배・관리할 수 있게 되었다고 볼 수 있다. 원고가 DD 등에게 이 사건 주식을 양도한 것은 부당행위계산부인의 대상이 된다고 할 것이므로, 이 사건 처분은 적법하고, 이와 다른 전제에 있는 원고의 주장은 이유 없다. ○ 원고에게 이 사건 주식을 매도한 QQ 등은 원고의 임원, 직원, 임원의 아들로서, 이 사건 주식의 소유권 귀속에 관하여 원고와의 사이에 별다른 다툼이 없는 사람들이다. QQ 등은 원고가 이 사건 주식 취득 후 WW 등에게 이를 매도하기까지 약 2년 5개월~4년이 지나도록 주식매매의 무효를 주장한 적이 없다. ○ QQ 등은 원고가 이 사건 주식을 WW 등을 통하여 DD 등에게 양도한 것에 대하여 다툼이 없다

○○D, etc. recognizes that the ownership of the instant shares was attributed to them. D, etc. asserted the invalidity of the instant stock transaction and did not claim that W, etc. refund the sales price to W, etc., and the same applies to W, etc., and such situation continues to exist for not less than five years until the time of the instant disposition.

3. Conclusion

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