Trisa Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul Regional Tax Office et al.

May 30, 2014

1. On January 16, 2012, the head of the regional tax office’s disposition of collecting withholding tax for the Plaintiff in 2008 and other income tax of KRW 1,372,535,720 and disposition of imposing corporate tax for the business year 2009 shall be revoked in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the director of Seoul Regional Tax Office is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office is borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the head of the regional tax office is borne by Defendant

(1) Paragraph (1) of this Article and the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s Regional Tax Office’s notification of the change of income amount of KRW 26,035,334,768 against the Plaintiff on January 16, 2012 and the notification of the change of income amount of KRW 185,363,984 for the year 209 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (the first trade name was changed to the present trade name around October 27, 2008) is a company that owns the land ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), and the building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) of the size of 3 underground and 10 stories above the ground (hereinafter “instant building”). Nonparty 1 (the Plaintiff’s father, the representative director of the Plaintiff, was the Plaintiff’s company until October 12, 201. Nonparty 1 held office as the Plaintiff’s representative director by October 12, 201, Nonparty 47,520 shares (79.2%) of the Plaintiff’s shares issued 60,000 shares as of October 27, 2008 were owned by Nonparty 1, the remainder of 12,480 shares (20%) by Nonparty 1, the wife of Nonparty 1, respectively.

B.1) On May 2008, Nonparty 1 was anticipated to impose a tax amount of approximately KRW 40 billion on the donation of the instant building to his child. Nonparty 2, a certified public accountant, planned to contribute the instant building to Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6, instead of paying a tax, and proposed to Nonparty 1 to contribute the instant building to his child, and Nonparty 1 decided to accept it. The details of the franchise are as follows: (a) in the Republic of Korea, if the gift tax base exceeds KRW 3 billion, approximately 50% of the excess portion, but in Hong Kong, the Plaintiff was given a loan of KRW 30 billion from the bank as security to Nonparty 1, and then the amount of the Plaintiff’s shares was changed to the Plaintiff’s shares under the name of the Hong Kong- Kong corporation’s investment, thereby imposing a tax amount of KRW 40 billion on the Plaintiff’s investment from the Hong Kong corporation, and then the amount of the Plaintiff’s shares was changed to the Plaintiff’s investment in the Hong Kong corporation for the last five months.

2) On September 12, 2008, Nonparty 1 paid approximately KRW 8,000,000,000 to Nonparty 2 as the expenses and fees for the establishment of the Plaintiff’s money in Hong Kong around September 12, 2008.

3) On October 21, 2008, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 30 billion from a new bank as security on the instant land and building, and subsequently made a false report as if it invested in Ploar Rights Steel (hereinafter “SPLCO”), a dispute over a Chinese steel company, a Hong Kong corporation, in a way that it made an investment in Ploar Rights Steel (hereinafter “SPLCO”), and transferred the above KRW 30 billion ($ 21,796,000,000 which actually exchanged KRW 30 billion) to the account of Hong Kong Hong Kong (hereinafter “UBC”).

4) ① On October 23, 2008, 30 billion won transferred to the HSBC account under the name of the Warsaw, 30 billion won was transferred to the HSBC account in the name of the UK, Baba Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Round”), and approximately KRW 14.3 billion in the same day was transferred to the HSBC account under the name of the Hong Kong, Baba Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “BC account”), and approximately KRW 9.1 billion was transferred to the NABC account under the name of the Hong Kong, which was located in the name of the Republic of Korea, to the NABC account under the name of the Hong Kong, and approximately 7.2 billion won was transferred to the NABC account under the name of the Republic of Korea, which was located in the name of the Hong Kong.

5) On November 4, 2008, Daehan acquired 47,120 shares from the Plaintiff’s offering of new stocks (the par value per share: 5,00 won) and paid 10 billion won to the above new bank’s foreign account. On the same day, Daehan acquired 42,80 shares from the Plaintiff’s offering of new stocks (the par value per share: 5,000 won) and paid 9.1 billion won to the above Korean bank’s foreign account. Accordingly, on the same day, the total amount of the Plaintiff’s issued stocks was 60,000 shares to 150,000 shares [the total amount of KRW 147,520 shares (the par value per share: 31.68%), Nonparty 312,480 shares (the increase of KRW 31.32%), 47,1200 shares (the total amount of KRW 900,000,000 won per share) and KRW 108,508.4 billion (the total amount of capital)

6) On June 19, 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) deemed that the stocks (investment securities) of the Warsaw, which were held as a direct overseas investment, are sold to Knit Spot located in Thailand in Thailand to KRW 4,422,081,954; and (b) calculated the 25,417,919,323 won in difference with the investment amount of KRW 29,840,01,277 (the amount excluding fees, etc. out of KRW 30 billion remitted to the HSBC account in the name of the shower), and filed a corporate tax return for the business year 2008 with the tax base of KRW 26,63,866,600.

C. On January 16, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that the funds leaked as direct overseas investment were false investments, and corrected and notified 29,84,84,081,954 won, which was collected before the investigation commenced, which was appropriated as 29,840,01,277 won as funded assets (investment securities) and reflected in gross income, shall be deemed as the provisional payment to Nonparty 1, the representative director, and the remainder of 25,417,919,323 (=29,840,01,277 - 4,422,081,954 won), including non-deductible expenses, etc., and notified Nonparty 1,120,672,530 won as corporate tax for the business year 2010,28,507,870 won as corporate tax for the business year 280,507,870 won as stated below, and notified Nonparty 1,3636,384,85,2085

The amount of money in the subject of attribution contained in the main sentence (won) for the business year 2008 25,417,919,323 380,00,000 other fees (such as loan-related fees) 159,98,723 26,416,722 plus 77,416,7222, 334,768 209 as interest on the recognition of provisional payment for the business year 185,363,984

In addition, the head of the tax office at the time of capital increase as of November 4, 2008 by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, a shareholder of the Plaintiff, distributed profits of KRW 4,91,040,00 through unfair capital transactions (in spite of the Plaintiff’s value per share after capital increase, 267,680 won per share, 212,224 won per share) on the Dog and Dog-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-S-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-S-E-E-E-E-E-E-S-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-S-E-E-E-E-E-E-E-S-E-E-S

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 17, 2012 on April 6, 2012, but was dismissed on June 18, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8 through 13, 18, 20, 222 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The allegation of illegality of the notice of change in the instant income amount

The plaintiff's change in the income amount of 25,417,9,323 won was leaked to the non-party 1 as well as the non-party 2's non-party 70 billion won. However, the non-party 2's act of using the above non-party 1's loan to the non-party 70 billion won was not subject to the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's.

2) The allegation of illegality of the instant disposition

A) the first argument

On November 4, 2008, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, a shareholder of the Plaintiff, renounced the preemptive right to new shares issued at a low price and distributed profits by allowing three equipped companies and Dlim, a related party, to acquire new shares at a low price. This, on the premise that it constitutes other domestic source income under Article 93 subparag. 11 (i) of the former Corporate Tax Act, notified the Plaintiff of the tax withholding amount for the year 2008 and the amount of KRW 1,372,535,720 for the reason that the Plaintiff failed to perform the duty to submit the payment statement related to other domestic source income (additional Tax) for the business year 2009 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not perform the duty to submit the payment statement related to the above domestic source income, the Plaintiff issued the new shares at a low price, and thus, the Plaintiff’s total amount of capital and legal relations arising from the commercial law and franchise was neither processed nor processed, nor was the Plaintiff issued the new shares issued at a shareholder registry against Nonparty 3 and D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s new shares were unlawful.

B) the second argument

As a document-based business entity can not be the subject of taxation transactions under the tax law, it cannot be the subject of income attribution. Therefore, the Dlim and Dozzzzzzers falling under Pestzers cannot be allocated profits, and cannot be the subject of income attribution of domestic source other income. Thus, the instant tax disposition based on a different premise is unlawful.

C) the third assertion

Article 132(14) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009) provides that “The income accrued by a foreign corporation, such as a stockholder, etc., from a transaction falling under any of the items of Article 88(1)8, by distributing profits from other stockholders, etc. in a special relationship under the provisions of each subparagraph of Article 13(1)8 shall be deemed the income of a foreign corporation as the domestic source of a foreign corporation.” Article 88(1)8 of the said Enforcement Decree provides that “the corporation, such as a stockholder, etc., distributes profits to other stockholders, etc., who are a person with a special relationship. However, in this case, the subject who distributed profits to the d forest and the e-learning to a third-party, a foreign corporation, is not a corporation, but Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3, who are an individual. Therefore, the disposition of this case is unlawful

D) the fourth argument

In this case, Nonparty 1 is the person who received actual profits due to the issuance of new stocks to the dlim and chips. The tax authority imposed gift tax exceeding KRW 14 billion on Nonparty 1 on the ground that Nonparty 1 title trust the new stocks that were issued by Nonparty 1 was processed to the dlim and 3-trade range. However, the Plaintiff, who is aware of both the subject to actual attribution of new stocks issued by the processing and the source of funds, may not be deemed as the person to whom the income accrues, and the e-learning range cannot be deemed as the person to whom the income accrues. Accordingly, the instant disposition of taxation in this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On January 20, 2012, Nonparty 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five years on August 10, 2012 (Seoul Central District Court 2012Gohap83,723(merged). Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of five years on August 10, 2012 due to the following criminal facts: (a) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement); (b) the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment; (c) the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement); (d) the violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment; and (d) the Plaintiff was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50 million due to joint penal provisions; and (d) the Plaintiff’s appeal and final appeal were all dismissed (Seoul High Court 2012No2683; 2012No371, Dec. 31, 2012).

본문내 포함된 표 〈2012고합83〉 소외 1는 원고의 대표이사로서 회사의 전반적인 운영 및 자금관리 업무에 종사하는 자이고, 소외 5, 소외 6은 각 성운회계법인 소속 공인회계사다. 1. 부동산 증여세 탈세 방안 공모 소외 1는 2008. 5. 일자불상경 이 사건 건물을 자녀에게 증여할 경우 약 400억 원 이상의 세금이 부과될 것이 예상되자, 부동산 개발업을 목적으로 하는 주식회사 치넷코리아 한국지사장인 소외 2에게 절세방안을 마련할 것을 요청하였다. 소외 2은 2008. 7. ~ 8.경 공인회계사인 소외 5, 소외 6과 함께 탈세 및 세무조사 대비 방안을 구상하는 한편, 페이퍼컴퍼니 설립 및 관리업무를 대행하는 홍콩법인인 Multi-Check Limited(이하 ‘Multi-Check’이라 한다)의 대표 Liza Chan 등과 절세방안의 실행에 필요한 홍콩에서의 자금 송금을 위한 페이퍼컴퍼니 설립과 계좌 개설 등을 협의하는 등, 그 때부터 2008. 9. 초순경까지 소외 1가 세금을 내지 않고 이 사건 건물을 자녀에게 증여하는 상증세 플랜을 기획하였다. 그 구체적인 내용은 대한민국에서는 증여세 과세표준이 30억 원을 초과하게 되면 그 초과한 부분에 대하여 약 50%의 세금을 내야 하지만 홍콩에서는 주식 양도에 대한 소득세나 증여세가 부과되지 않는 점을 이용하여, 원고가 이 사건 건물을 담보로 은행으로부터 300억 원을 대출받아 홍콩 소재 페이퍼컴퍼니를 통하여 중국 철강회사에 투자하는 것처럼 가장하였다가, 수개월 후에 투자손실을 본 것처럼 가장하여 위 자금 중 45억 원을 청산금 명목으로 회수하고, 그 나머지 금액은 홍콩에 페이퍼컴퍼니들인 외국법인들을 설립하여 그 법인들을 통하여 원고에 투자하여 원고의 주식 1/2 이상을 취득하게 함으로써 원고를 외국인투자기업으로 변경한 다음, 위 외국법인들의 주식을 증여세가 부과되지 않는 홍콩에서 소외 1의 자녀들인 소외 4, 소외 7에게 세금 없이 증여하고, 이어서 해외투자 실패로 회사가치가 떨어진 원고의 나머지 주식을 국내에서 소외 1의 자녀들에게 증여하는 것이었다. 소외 1는 2008. 9. 초순 일자불상경 소외 2으로부터 상증세 플랜을 설명받고 실행에 옮길 것을 동의하면서 실행 대가로 소외 2에게 이 사건 건물에 대한 감정 가액의 10%에 해당되는 약 80억 원을 주기로 하였고, 소외 2은 상증세 플랜을 협의하고 실행을 도와주는 대가로 소외 5, 소외 6에게 1억 5,000만 원을 주기로 약속하였다. 2. 소외 1, 소외 5, 소외 6과 소외 2의 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령), 외국환거래법위반 누구든지 자본거래를 허위로 신고하여서는 아니 된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 소외 1, 소외 5, 소외 6은 소외 2과 상증세 플랜에 따라 해외투자를 가장하여 허위로 해외직접투자신고를 하고 투자금 명목으로 원고의 돈을 빼내어 와 외국법인들 명의로 원고에 다시 투자하는 용도 등에 사용하기로 순차 공모하였다. 소외 2은 상증세 플랜을 총괄 기획하여 그와 관련되는 업무를 소외 5, 소외 6에게 지시하고, 해외투자를 가장하여 해외로 송금한 금원을 홍콩에서 페이퍼컴퍼니간의 자금이체를 거쳐 세탁한 후 외국 법인들 명의로 한국으로 송금하는 일을 담당하고, 소외 5, 소외 6은 상증세 플랜을 구체적으로 검토한 후 해외직접투자신고 및 세무조사와 관련된 의견서 작성 등의 업무를 담당하기로 하였다. 이에 따라 소외 1는 2008. 9. 12.경 원고의 돈 약 3억 8,000만 원(미화 34만 달러)을 업무상 보관하던 중 홍콩에서의 페이퍼컴퍼니 설립 비용 및 수수료 명목으로 소외 2이 대표로 있는 Wincorp Business 계좌를 통해 소외 2에게 송금하였다. 소외 2은 2008. 10. 8.경부터 2008. 10. 14.경까지 Multi-Check 담당자와 메일을 주고받고 홍콩을 오가며 상증세 플랜을 실행하기 위하여 300억 원의 송금 및 자금세탁에 필요한 페이퍼컴퍼니인 제네샤(상증세 플랜에 의하면 제네샤를 통하여 중국 철강회사인 SPLCO에 투자하는 것으로 꾸미기로 하였다)와 최종적으로 원고에 투자할 외국법인들인 드림, 세븐의 설립 및 계좌개설 등을 준비한 후, 2008. 10. 17.경 홍콩 소재 HSBC 센트럴지점에서 소외 1와 함께 위 은행 담당자 등을 만나 위 회사들의 설립 및 관련 계좌를 개설하고 자금 송금에 필요한 서류들을 미리 작성하였다. 또한, 원고가 홍콩 법인을 통하여 중국 회사에 투자하는 형식이었으므로 담당 회계사가 홍콩에 출장을 다녀온 것처럼 출입국 기록을 만들어 둘 필요가 있으므로 2008. 10. 20. 소외 6은 소외 2의 지시에 따라 홍콩으로 출국하여 그 다음날인 2008. 10. 21. 귀국하였다. 계속하여 소외 1는 2008. 10. 21. 이 사건 건물을 담보로 신한은행 여의도 중앙기업센터지점으로부터 300억 원을 대출받고, 소외 5는 상증세 플랜에 따라 2008. 10. 22. 같은 지점에서 사실은 원고가 제네샤를 통하여 SPLCO에 투자하는 것이 아니었음에도 불구하고, 대출받은 위 300억 원을 SPLCO에 투자하는 것처럼 허위 내용의 해외투자계약서, 해외직접투자의 적정성에 대한 의견서 등을 작성·제출하여 자본거래인 해외직접투자신고를 허위로 하고, 소외 2은 그 무렵 위 지점에서 홍콩의 HSBC 센트럴지점에 개설된 제네샤의 계좌로 위 300억 원(미화 약 2,179만 달러)을 직접 송금하였다. 이로써 소외 1, 소외 5, 소외 6은 소외 2과 공모하여 소외 1가 업무상 보관하던 피해자 원고의 돈 약 3억 8,000만 원을 상증세 플랜의 착수금 명목으로, 300억 원에서 청산금으로 가장하여 실제 회수된 44억 원을 제외한 금원인 약 256억 원을 해외투자 명목으로 각 반출하여 합계 259억 8,000만 원을 횡령하고, 자본거래인 해외직접투자를 허위로 신고하였다. 3. 소외 1, 소외 5, 소외 6과 소외 2의 범죄수익은닉의규제및처벌등에관한법률위반 누구든지 범죄수익 등의 취득 또는 처분에 관한 사실을 가장하여서는 아니 된다. 그럼에도 불구하고 소외 1, 소외 5, 소외 6은 소외 2과 위 제2항과 같이 해외투자를 가장하여 원고의 돈을 횡령한 사실의 발각을 피하고 상증세 플랜에 따라 소외 1의 자녀들에게 이 사건 건물을 탈세방법으로 증여하는 데 필요하여 설립한 외국법인들인 드림, 세븐이 원고의 주식을 매수하는 데 사용되는 돈이 위와 같이 횡령한 원고의 돈이라는 것을 감추기 위하여 자금을 세탁하기로 순차 공모하였다. 소외 2은 2008. 10. 23. 홍콩에 있는 HSBC에서 미리 작성하여 소지하고 있던 관련 서류를 이용하여 ① 위와 같이 원고의 돈 300억 원이 송금된 제네샤의 HSBC 계좌로부터 영국령 버진아일랜드 소재 페이퍼컴퍼니인 윈카(대표 추앙시치에)의 HSBC 계좌로 위 300억 원을 전액 송금하고, ② 위 300억 원 중 약 70억 원은 다시 영국령 버진아일랜드 소재 자신이 대표로 있는 치넷의 HSBC 계좌로, 약 140억 원은 페이퍼컴퍼니인 브라이튼(대표 추앙시치에)의 HSBC 계좌로, 약 90억 원은 페이퍼컴퍼니인 퍼스트(대표 Wincorp Business)의 HSBC 계좌로 각 송금하고, ③ 치넷의 HSBC 계좌의 위 돈 약 70억 원을 추앙시치에 명의의 우리은행 국내 대외계정으로 송금하고, ④ 브라이튼의 HSBC 계좌의 위 돈 약 140억 원을 다시 급조한 외국법인인 드림(대표 추앙시치에)의 홍콩 소재 HSBC 계좌를 거쳐 드림 명의의 신한은행 국내 대외계정으로 송금하고, ⑤ 퍼스트의 HSBC 계좌의 위 돈 약 90억 원을 다시 급조한 외국법인인 세븐(대표는 소외 2이었다가 2008. 10. 20. CHAN SHI YI로 변경)의 홍콩 소재 HSBC 계좌를 거쳐 세븐 명의의 우리은행 국내 대외계정으로 직접 각 송금하였다. 이와 같이 소외 2은 상증세 플랜의 실행을 위하여 원고의 돈 300억 원(미화 약 2,179만 달러)을 홍콩 소재 제네샤에 송금한 그 다음 날 바로 드림, 세븐 및 추앙시치에 명의의 우리은행 등 국내 대외계정으로 전액 송금되게 하였고, 소외 5, 소외 6은 위와 같은 자금세탁에 필요한 해외투자계약서 등을 작성하여 주는 등의 역할을 수행하였다. 나아가 소외 2은 2008. 11. 3. 위와 같이 회수한 금원 중 드림의 계좌에서 100억 원을, 세븐의 계좌에서 약 91억 원을 각 출금하여 2008. 11. 5. 원고가 유상증자한 지분 60%를 취득하는데 사용하고, 소외 5, 소외 6은 2008. 10. 중순경 세무조사에 대비하여 미리 원고의 ‘유상증자 가액의 적정범위에 대한 의견서’를 작성하여 위 지분 취득을 용이하게 하였으며, 2008. 11. 7. 우리은행에 외국인투자등록신청을 한 후 원고를 외국계 법인인양 그 이름을 ‘트리스타 주식회사’로 바꾸었으며, 이후 소외 1는 소외 2과 2010. 9. ~ 10.경 드림과 세븐의 모회사인 브라이튼, 퍼스트의 주식 소유자가 소외 1일 경우 원고의 돈임이 발각될 것을 우려하여 그 명의를 ‘소외 1’에서 ‘추앙시치에’, ‘황류에이씨’로 바꾸었다. 이와 같이 소외 1, 소외 5, 소외 6은 소외 2과 해외투자를 가장하여 횡령한 범죄수익 약 256억 원을 마치 원고의 돈이 아닌 외국인 추앙시치에 및 외국법인인 드림 등의 돈인 양 출처를 감추고 외국법인이 투자를 한 것처럼 원고의 지분 60%를 취득하는 등에 사용하여 범죄수익의 취득 또는 처분에 관한 사실을 가장하였다. 〈2012고합723〉 소외 1는 소외 2과 공모하여, 원고가 은행으로부터 300억 원을 대출받아 홍콩 소재 페이퍼컴퍼니를 통하여 중국 철강회사에 투자하는 것처럼 가장하였다가 수개월 후에 투자손실을 본 것처럼 하여 위 자금 중 45억 원을 청산금 명목으로 회수하고 그 나머지 금액은 홍콩에 페이퍼컴퍼니들인 외국법인을 설립하여 자금세탁을 한 다음 원고 주식을 매수하는 데 사용하기로 한 다음, 원고의 법인세를 신고함에 있어 마치 254억 원 상당의 투자손실을 입은 것처럼 결손금을 과다계상하는 방법으로 법인세를 포탈하기로 마음먹었다. 소외 1는 2008. 10. 21. 이 사건 건물을 담보로 신한은행 여의도 중앙기업센터지점으로부터 300억 원을 대출받았다. 소외 2은 공인회계사인 소외 5를 시켜 2008. 10. 22. 위 지점에서 원고가 위 300억 원을 페이퍼컴퍼니인 제네샤를 통하여 중국 철강회사인 SPLCO에 투자하는 것처럼 허위 내용의 해외투자계약서와 ‘투자가치가 충분하고, 해외 투자 경험이 전무한 원고의 입장에서는 바람직한 투자 방식이다’라는 내용의 ‘해외직접투자에 대한 투자 의견서’를 세일회계법인 명의로 작성하여 해외직접투자의 적정성에 대한 의견서 등을 작성·제출하였다. 소외 2은 2008. 10. 23.에서 2008. 11. 7.까지 사이에 해외투자를 가장하여 횡령한 약 256억 원을 홍콩 소재 페이퍼컴퍼니를 설립해 자금세탁을 한 다음 외국법인이 투자한 것처럼 원고의 지분 60%를 취득하는 등에 사용하고, 2009. 6. 20.경 소외 5로 하여금, 원고가 해외투자하여 제네샤를 통하여 China Material Technology Limited(이하 ‘CMT'라 한다)의 주식을 취득한 적도 없고, 그 투자 실패로 Knittpoint(대표 추앙시치에)에 미화 350만 달러(한화 약 44억 원)에 매각하는 청산절차가 허위임에도 청산대금이 적정한 것처럼 보이게 하기 위하여 제네샤의 지분 가치를 가급적 낮게 책정하여 ‘CMT의 주식 27.6.%를 보유하고 있는 제네샤의 2009. 4. 30. 현재 1주당 주식가치는 124.63달러이다’라는 내용의 ‘제네샤에 대한 주식가치 평가보고서’를 성운회계법인 명의로 작성하게 하였다. 소외 1는 2009. 9. 30. 역삼세무서에서 원고의 법인세를 신고함에 있어 위와 같이 대출금 300억 원을 홍콩 소재 페이퍼컴퍼니를 통하여 중국 철강회사에 투자하였다가 수개월 후에 투자손실을 보고 45억 원만 청산금 명목으로 회수한 것처럼 25,417,919,323원 상당의 결손금을 과대계상하고, 2011. 9. 30. 위 세무서에서 원고의 법인세를 신고함에 있어 2009 사업년도 결손금 과다계상액을 2011 사업년도에 이월시켜 같은 금액 상당의 법인소득을 감소시키는 방법으로 사위 기타 부정한 방법으로써 법인세 201,415,714원을 포탈하였다.

2) On May 7, 2012, where the above criminal trial against Nonparty 1 was pending, Nonparty 3 filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff claiming that “the Plaintiff’s issuance of new stocks on November 4, 2008 is merely a processing transaction to implement the franchise. Even if the board of directors did not adopt a resolution, only the appearance of the Plaintiff’s issuance of new stocks, such as the preparation of a board of directors’ meeting minutes, was written.” On June 15, 2012, Nonparty 3 filed a lawsuit for confirmation of non-existence of the issuance of new stocks (Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap38051) with the Seoul Central District Court 200Gahap38051. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s submission of a written reply stating that “The court’s determination was sought by the court since Nonparty 3 was all asserted,” which was the first date for pleading, and that the Plaintiff’s issuance of new stocks did not have any effect on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s issuance of new stocks was 10th of the price of the Plaintiff’s shares.”

3) On October 4, 2012, according to the above judgment, the registration of alteration was made on October 4, 2012, with the purport that the total number of the Plaintiff’s issued shares was 60,000 shares from 150,000 shares, and the total amount of capital was reduced to KRW 750,000 to KRW 300,

4) On May 2012, the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1 reached the market price of the instant building in KRW 110 billion. However, the value assessed by the method of assessment under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is merely 35 billion won and it is sufficient for Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 to bear only about KRW 15 billion even if they donated all of the shares in the Plaintiff to their children. However, Nonparty 1 was misunderstanding that they should bear a large amount of gift tax on the basis of the market price when they donated the instant building to their children. Nonparty 2, who had access to Nonparty 1, who had been misunderstanding, made a proposal for a gift tax on the basis of the market price. Nonparty 2, who was misunderstanding, made a proposal for a gift tax of KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, which were widely used in money laundering from the past, 308,000,000 won, by receiving the gift tax directly from Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 208.

5) On January 14, 2013, the Plaintiff, as described in the above paragraph (4), by deceiving Nonparty 2 as to the Plaintiff, and by deceiving Nonparty 2 as to the Plaintiff, he received 7.9 billion won or more (380 million won or more as the starting money of September 12, 2008, and 7.6 billion won acquired and returned by Nonparty 2 on October 22, 2008) from the Plaintiff, and acquired the ownership transfer registration with Nonparty 1 in collusion with Nonparty 1, 380 million won, and Nonparty 1, 200 million won or more, claiming for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer from the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 3.5 billion and KRW 2.5 billion, which was in custody of the building of this case, for the purpose of embezzlement or embezzlement of KRW 1.5 billion or embezzlement of KRW 2.5 billion for the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 300 billion,000,000,000,000,00.

On December 19, 2013, the above court found that Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 conspired with Nonparty 1 in the criminal case against Nonparty 1 and embezzled the Plaintiff’s funds, and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge Nonparty 2’s deception in addition to Nonparty 1’s statement in the investigation agency, etc. In light of the fact that Nonparty 1’s statement was reversed several times from the initial investigation to the prosecution, it is insufficient to recognize this part of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. ② As to the conjunctive claim, it is recognized that Nonparty 2 embezzled the Plaintiff’s damage claim from Nonparty 1 in collusion with Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, which was difficult to establish this part of the claim, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have any specific claim for the embezzlement of the Plaintiff’s damage claim from Nonparty 1 and the Defendant’s damage claim from Nonparty 2 for the above joint tort, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the Plaintiff’s damage claim against Nonparty 1 was dismissed.

6) Nonparty 1, upon receiving an investigation from the prosecution, stated that Nonparty 2 lent approximately KRW 7.2 billion to the domestic account of the Bank in the name of the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea under the name of the Republic of Korea. Nonparty 1 loaned KRW 7.2 billion to Nonparty 2 on February 25, 2010 and April 9, 2010, but the said statement was made by Nonparty 2 upon Nonparty 2’s request and made a false statement. Although Nonparty 2 was returned to Nonparty 2 in the form of financial transaction to return the money, upon completion of a customs investigation, Nonparty 2 demanded payment again and returned on June 1, 2010.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 16 through 22, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) As to the allegation of illegality of the notice of change in the instant income amount

A) Article 67 of the former Corporate Tax Act provides, “In filing a report on the corporate tax base based on the income for each business year under Article 60 or determining or revising the corporate tax base under Article 66 or 69, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of as bonus, dividend, other outflow from the company, internal reserve, etc. to the person to whom such income belongs as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.” Accordingly, Article 106(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009 for the business year 2009; for the business year 2009, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 22035, Feb. 18, 2010) provides that where it is clear that the amount included in the calculation of earnings has leaked outside of the company, if the person to whom such income belongs is an executive officer or employee, the amount included in the calculation of earnings shall be disposed of

B) First, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above KRW 19.1 billion was leaked and reverted to Nonparty 1, in addition to the company’s death, in light of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the arguments, as to about KRW 19.1 billion deposited in the name of capital increase for capital increase as of November 4, 2008.

① Since Nonparty 1 leaked 30 billion won of the Plaintiff’s 30 billion won of the Plaintiff’s money loaned as collateral to the instant building from abroad, the Plaintiff made D 30% (i.e., 31.41% + 28.59%) of the Plaintiff’s e.g., using D e., e., the Plaintiff’s e.g., the e., the e., the e., e., the e., e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e. the e. the e.

② 비록 소외 3이 원고를 상대로 제기한 신주발행부존재확인의 소에서 ‘원고의 2008. 11. 4.자 신주발행이 존재하지 아니함을 확인한다’라는 판결이 선고되어 확정됨에 따라 원고의 발행주식 총수와 자본금, 주주가 상증세 플랜이 실행되기 이전의 상태로 돌아갔으나, ㉠ 소외 3이 위 신주발행부존재확인의 소를 제기한 시기(2012. 5. 7.)는 소외 1이 상증세 플랜으로 인해 특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(횡령)죄, 조세범처벌법위반죄 등으로 기소되어 형사재판을 받고 있던 중일 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 소득금액변동통지 및 부과처분이 이루어진 이후인 점, ㉡ 소외 3은 소외 1의 처이자 원고의 주주이므로 상증세 플랜과 원고의 2008. 11. 4.자 신주발행 사실을 잘 알고 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ㉢ 원고는 사실상 소외 1의 1인 회사인 점, ㉣ 소외 3이 제기한 위 신주발행부존재확인 소송에서 원고는 소외 3이 주장하는 사실을 모두 인정하므로 법원의 적의 판단을 구한다는 취지의 답변서를 제출한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 판결은 소외 1에 대한 형사사건과 이 사건 각 처분에 관한 쟁송 등에서 유리한 판단을 받기 위해 소외 3과 원고가 담합하여 제기한 것으로 보이므로, 유상증자대금 명목의 위 약 191억 원이 사외에 유출되어 소외 1에게 귀속되었는지 여부를 판단함에 있어 아무런 영향을 미치지 않는다고 할 것이다( 대법원 1998. 4. 24. 선고 98두2164 판결 , 대법원 2001. 3. 27. 선고 99두10377 판결 , 대법원 2006. 12. 7. 선고 2006두10672 판결 등 참조).

③ If the franchise was not discovered but successful, Nonparty 1, using the Plaintiff’s money leaked out of Korea, donated the Plaintiff’s stocks to the Plaintiff’s shareholders, thereby eventually creating the children as the Plaintiff’s shareholders, and the Plaintiff and the instant building could have achieved the purpose of the private sector extremely, instead of paying gift tax, to the Plaintiff and their children.

C) Next, among the investment securities disposal losses, about KRW 7.2 billion, the remaining 7.2 billion, excluding the above approximately KRW 19.1 billion, the following circumstances were revealed by comprehensively taking account of the facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① agreed to Nonparty 2 to give approximately KRW 8.0 billion equivalent to the appraisal value of the building of this case in return for the loan. Accordingly, Nonparty 2 transferred approximately KRW 7.2 billion out of KRW 3.0 billion borrowed the building of this case as collateral to the Korean bank's external account under the name of Quau, and then used it. According to this, Nonparty 1 did not have evidence of the above 7.2 billion won, which is part of the Plaintiff's embezzlement, to Nonparty 2 for the above 7.2 billion won, and it was reasonable to view that Nonparty 1 did not directly give the above 2 to Nonparty 2, but it was difficult to recognize that there was no evidence of Nonparty 2's 7.2 billion in the process of withdrawing the Plaintiff's account under the name of Sh.

D) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2) As to the allegation of illegality of the instant disposition

A) Article 93 subparag. 11(i) of the former Corporate Tax Act provides that one of the domestic source income of a foreign corporation shall be “income accrued from an increase in value due to capital transactions prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Accordingly, Article 132(13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21302, Feb. 4, 2009) provides that “a person having a special relationship prescribed by Presidential Decree” with a resident or domestic corporation shall be “foreign corporation having a special relationship under Article 2(1)1 or 2 of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act with a non-resident or foreign corporation,” and Article 131(2)1 or 2 of the same Act provides that “The income generated from the increase in value due to capital transactions by a foreign corporation having a special relationship with a shareholder under Article 8(1)8 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, which is a shareholder or a foreign corporation having a special relationship with a shareholder under Article 131(1)3(b) of the same Act.”

B) However, according to the above factual basis, Dlim and 3-op range received benefits from capital increase issued on November 4, 2008 as the Plaintiff’s shareholder from Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3 as the Plaintiff’s individual shareholder. As such, Dlim and 3-op range cannot be deemed to have caused other domestic source income as stipulated in Article 93 subparag. 11(i) of the former Corporate Tax Act. Therefore, the instant disposition of taxation, based on the premise that Dlim and 7-op range had generated other domestic source income, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office is dismissed as it is without merit, and the claim against the director of the regional tax office against the defendant is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of Related Acts]

Judges Ba-hee (Presiding Judge)