A loan to a person with a special relationship without connection with the business, and a part of the business year is subject to duplicate investigation.

Exchangeable bonds are purchased by means of deviating from economic rationality to provide funds without connection with the business affairs to persons with a special relationship. It is an alternative transaction for the plaintiff to succeed to the management right of the plaintiff. The part of the business year that overlaps with the items of the first tax investigation in the second tax investigation is the duplicate investigation.

208Guhap1810 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing corporate tax

XXXXXX 주식회사

O Head of tax office

209.9.2

October 28, 2009

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 1,742,751,460 against the Plaintiff on August 16, 2006 shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Three-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the Defendant, and the remainder are assessed against the Plaintiff, respectively.

The disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 1,742,751,460 for the business year 2001, corporate tax of KRW 1,59,566,420 for the business year 2001, corporate tax of KRW 1,59,566,420 for the business year 2002, corporate tax of KRW 765,349,120 for the business year 203, corporate tax of KRW 765,349,120 for the business year 203, corporate tax of June 1, 2006, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) conducted an investigation of stock change with respect to the XX industry Co., Ltd. from October 27, 2005 to March 17, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "P industry"); and (b) on June 7, 2001, the Plaintiff took over exchangeable bonds (the issue price of KRW 5.4 billion per share, KRW 30,000 per share, exchange shares: hereinafter referred to as the "exchange bonds" of this case) issued by the XX industry from October 27, 2005 to March 17, 2006, based on the fact that the Plaintiff took over 8% of the annual interest rate of 1,80,000 won of the Plaintiff's stocks owned by the related industry, as well as the interest paid for the acquired fund, and lent money to the related party as deductible expenses, and at the same time, notified the Defendant of the tax burden unfairly lower than the interest rate of KRW 9,488,515.25

B. The Defendant, upon notification of the above taxation data, corrected and notified the Plaintiff as of June 1, 2006 the corporate tax of 2,155,235,480, corporate tax of 2001 business year, KRW 1,679,447,360, corporate tax of 2002 business year, KRW 79,170,180, corporate tax of 2003 business year, KRW 257,216,860, respectively.

C. After that, the defendant was specially related for other reasons (the business year from 2001 to 2003) as of August 16, 2006.

In 201, 160,907,025, corporate tax of 1,018,87,877,200, 207, 206, 305, 207, 207, 305, 208, 407, 207, 2005, 207, 207, 300, 207, 40, 207, 207, 208, 40, 2069, 206, 205, 30, 206, 205, 206, 206, 205, 206, 306, 205, 206, 306, 205, 207, 306, 300, 208, 208, 209, 2005, 207, 394, 208, 207, 201.

D. The plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 1, 2006, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 25, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

㈎ 이 사건 교환사채의 취득은 주식을 취득할 수 있는 권리를 취득한 것이고 이를 두고 법인의 업무와 관련없는 자금의 대여액으로 볼 수 없으므로, 이를 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

㈏ 대구지방국세청은 2002. 4.부터 같은 해 5.까지 원고의 1999사업연도에 대한 법 인세 세무조사를 하면서 2001사업연도의 이 사건 교환사채의 취득에 대하여도 조사를 하였고, 2002. 9. 14. 국세청 본청 감사관실에서 북대구세무서 감사시에도 위 쟁점이 다시 검토되었으나 정당한 것으로 인정되었는데, 그 후 2005.경 서울지방국세청에서 XX그룹에 대한 주식변동조사를 하면서 이 사건 교환사채의 취득에 대하여 다시 조사 를 하고 이 사건 처분을 하였는바, 이는 통일 쟁점에 대한 중복조사이므로 이러한 위 법한 중복조사에 기초하여 이루어진 이 사건 처분은 위법하다.

(2) The defendant's assertion

㈎ 원고가 특수관계법인인 XX산업이 발행한 이 사건 교환사채를 매입한 것은 원고의 사주인 김AA이 원고의 경영권 승계를 위한 업무와 관련없는 변칙적인 자금대여에 해당하는 것이고, 부당행위계산부인 대상이 되므로, 이를 전제로 한 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

㈏ 2002년 대구지방국세청에서 실시한 조사는 원고의 1999사업연도에 대한 법인제세 통합조사를 한 것이고, 2005년 서울지방국세청에서는 XX그룹에 대한 주식변동조사를 한 것으로서 같은 조사대상이 아니고, 이 사건 쟁점에 대하여 2003년 서울지방국세청에서 SS도시가스 주식회사에 대하여 법인세를 부과하여 완납한 점, 2004. 7.경 XX그룹의 2002년도분 주식이동조사를 하면서 특수관계자 사이에 이루어진 이 사건 교환사채인수자료를 인터넷관련 사이트에서 획득하여 조세탈루 혐의에 대하여 서면검토가 이루어진 점 서울지방국세청장의 주식이동조사 결과 원고에 대하여 2001사업연도 내지 2004사업연도에 걸쳐 법인세가 부과된 점 등으로 볼 때, 이는 중복조사의 예외적 허용사항인 조세탈루의 혐의를 인정할 만한 명백한 자료가 있는 경우 및 2이상의 사업연도와 관련하여 잘못이 있는 경우에 해당한다고 할 것이므로, 이 사건 처분은 중복조사금지원칙에 위반한 처분이 아니다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On May 29, 2001, when the non-party KimB, the founder of the XX group, died, the XX group agreed on May 29, 2001 that the non-party KimCC, the head of KimB, the SS Gas Department, the second South Korea KimD, and the non-party KimA, the third South Korea, the plaintiff department, respectively, will be in charge of management disputes related to the XX group. According to the share exchange transaction principle concluded upon the above agreement, the KimCC should sell the plaintiff's shares to 30,00 won per share to the corporation under the jurisdiction of KimA or KimA.

(2) On June 7, 2001, the instant exchangeable bonds (the exchange value of KRW 300,000 per share) with the face value of KRW 54 billion (the exchange value of KRW 300,000 per share KRW 17,700 per share) granted to the Plaintiff, a stock-listed corporation of the Korea Stock Exchange, who is a stock-listed corporation, as follows:

(3) On June 7, 2001, the Plaintiff acquired the instant exchangeable bonds from the XX industry, issued a public offering of non-guaranteed bonds (issued amount: KRW 50 billion, interest rate: KRW 60 billion, and period: 3 years) and raised the operating fund.

(4) After acquiring the instant exchangeable bonds, on December 28, 2002, the Plaintiff transferred 770,000 won of the instant exchangeable bonds (the acquisition price of KRW 23.1 billion) among the instant exchangeable bonds to the Plaintiff and its specially related parties to the Plaintiff, and to the FF Broadcasting Co., Ltd., for KRW 2.4 billion, KRW 3.1 billion, KRW 100,000 (the acquisition price of KRW 3.0 billion) to the GG Cooperatives on March 10, 2003, KRW 9.3 billion (the acquisition price of KRW 2.7.9 billion) to HHwon Co., Ltd. on June 2, 2004, and the said transferee transferred the instant exchangeable bonds to KRW 2.7.9 billion, each of the instant shares (the acquisition price of KRW 31,122 per share).

was converted.

(5) The SS Urban Gas Corporation’s shares 1,840,816 shares are owned by the XX industry on June 2001.

7. The SS Urban Gas Corporation issued exchangeable bonds at the exchange price of 25,00 won per common share (16,600 won per day) and the SS Urban Gas Corporation acquired the whole amount of the above exchangeable bonds. On November 2003, SS Urban Gas Corporation received correction and notification of corporate tax and paid in full on the ground that it is a loan unrelated to the business of the special relation corporation at the Seoul Regional Tax Office’s investigation conducted around November 2003.

(6) During the period from April 3, 2002 to May 15, 2002, the Daegu Regional Tax Office investigated the Plaintiff’s consolidated investigation into the corporate tax system for the 1999 business year (hereinafter “the first tax investigation”). With respect to the acquisition of exchangeable bonds, the tax base and the amount of corporate tax for the business year of May 21, 2001 were resolved on May 21, 2002. On September 14, 2002, the auditor of the Daegu Regional Tax Office requested the Plaintiff to explain the copy of the contract regarding the acquisition of the instant exchangeable bonds, the process of acquisition, and the purpose of acquisition, and the Seoul Regional Tax Office investigated the Plaintiff’s tax investigation into the Plaintiff’s shares for the business year from October 27, 2005 to March 17, 2006 (the Seoul Regional Tax Office).

[Reasons for Recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 24, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As to the assertion that the acquisition of the instant exchangeable bonds was not a loan unrelated to business affairs

㈎ 법인세법 제28조 제1항 제4호 나목, 법인세법시행령 제53조 제1항에서 법인이 특수관계자에게 업무와 관련 없이 지급한 가지급금 조달 등을 위한 차입금에 대한 이자를 손금으로 산입할 수 없도록 규제하고 있는 것은, 업무와 관련 없이 지급한 가지급금 조달 등을 위한 차입금에 대하여 지출한 이자는 법인의 수익을 창출하기 위하여 지출한 비용이 아니므로 수익대응성이 없어 세무회계상 이를 손금으로 보기 어려울 뿐 만 아니라, 조세정책적으로도 법인인 기업의 사주가 자신의 개인적인 필요를 위해 기업자금을 무분별하게 유출하여 기업이 부실화되는 것을 막고, 아울러 특수관계에 있는 계열기업들이 업무와 무관하게 상호간에 자금대여 등으로 얽히게 되어 어느 한 기업이 도산할 경우 다른 계열기업이 연쇄도산하거나 부실하게 되는 것을 방지하기 위하여, 즉 재무구조가 취약한 법인이 타인자본에 의존하여 자금을 비생산적으로 활용하는 것 을 규제함으로써 기업의 재무구조를 개선하고 건전한 경제활동을 유도하여 기업의 경 쟁력을 강화하기 위한 취지라고 할 것이므로, 이와 같은 관련규정의 입법취지에 비추 어 볼 때, 위 규정상의 지급이자 손금불산입의 대상기준인 '업무와 관련 없이 지급한 가지급금'에는 순수한 의미의 대여금은 물론 채권의 성질상 대여금에 준하는 것도 포 함되고, 적정한 이자율에 의하여 이자를 받으면서 가지급금을 제공한 경우도 포함된다 고 할 것이며, 가지급금의 업무관련성 여부는 당해 법인의 목적사업이나 영업내용을 기준으로 객관적으로 판단되어야 할 것이고(대법원 2003. 3. 11. 선고 2002두4068 판 결, 1992. 11. 10. 선고 91누8302 판결 등 참조), 한편, 부당행위계산이라 함은 납세자가 정상적인 경제인의 합리적 거래형식에 의하지 아니하고 우회행위, 다단계행위 그 밖의 이상한 거래형식을 취함으로써 통상의 합리적인 거래형식을 취할 때 생기는 조세 의 부담을 경감 내지 배제시키는 행위계산을 말하고, 법인세법 제52조에서 부당행위계 산부인 규정을 둔 취지는 법인과 특수관계에 있는 자와의 거래가 법인세법시행령 제 88조 제1항 각 호에 정한 제반 거래형태를 빙자하여 남용함으로써 경제적 합리성을 무시하였다고 인정되어 조세법적인 측면에서 부당한 것으로 보일 때 과세권자가 객관적으로 타당하다고 인정되는 소득이 있었던 것으로 의제하여 과세함으로써 과세의 공평을 기하고 조세회피행위를 방지하고자 하는 것인바, 경제적 합리성의 유무에 대한 판단은 제반 사정을 구체적으로 고려하여 그 거래행위가 건전한 사회통념이나 상관행에 비추어 경제적 합리성을 결한 비정상적인 것인지의 여부에 따라 판단하여야 한다(대법 원 2002. 9. 4. 선고 2001두7268 판결 등 참조).

㈏ 이 사건에 관하여 살피건대, 위 인정사실 및 앞서 든 증거에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 언정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 원고가 2001. 6. 7. 이 사건 교환사채를 인수한 후 이를 주식과 교환하지 아니하고, 만기일(2004. 6. 7.) 이전인 2002. 12. 28.부터 2004. 6. 2.까지 사이에 원고의 사주인 김AA이 지배하고 있는 주식회사 EE케이블TV경기방송 등에 대부분을 매각한 점,② 원고가 경영권 조정과정에서 주식을 취득할 목적으로 이 사건 교환사채를 형식상 취득하였으나, 이 사건 교환사채 발행일 현재 상장법인인 원고의 주식 종가는 17,700원으로서 이 사건 교환사채의 교환가액 30,000원의 59%밖에 되지 않는 불리한 조건의 사채를 당좌대월이자율(2001년 11%, 2002년 9%)보다 낮은 연 단리 8%의 이자율로 매입한 것은 원고의 사주인 김AA의 경영권을 확보하기 위한 것으로서 특수관계자가 아닌 자간의 정상적인 거래에서는 성립하기 어려운 것이고 경제적 합리성을 결여한 거래로 볼 수 있으며, 특수관계자간 교환 사채 취득을 통한 변칙적인 자금지원으로 볼 수 있는 점,③ 원고가 XX산업으로부터 이 사건 교환사채를 취득한 것은 원고의 자산운용이 아닌 원고의 사주 김AA의 경영권 확보가 목적이므로 원고의 업무와 무관하게 교환사채를 취득한 것으로 인정되고 상법 제341조가 금지하고 있는 자기주식취득금지규정을 우회적으로 위반한 것으로 보이 는 점,④ SS도시가스 주식회사의 경우 이 사건 교환사채와 유사한 일자 ・ 조건 ・ 목적 ・ 이자율의 교환사채를 XX산업으로부터 취득한 것에 대하여 과세관청이 업무무관 대여금으로 보아 법인세를 과세하였으나 불복 없이 전액 납부한 것은 원고와 SS도시 가스 주식회사가 특수관계법인인 XX산업이 발행한 교환사채를 취득한 거래가 XX산업에 대한 변칙적인 자금대여임을 입증하는 것이라고 볼 수 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고가 특수관계법인인 XX산업이 발행한 이 사건 교환사채를 매입한 것은 경제적인 합리성을 일탈하여 특수관계자에게 업무와 관련 없이 자금을 지원한 것으로서 원고의 사주인 김AA이 원고의 경영권을 승계하도록 하기 위한 변칙거래라고 할 것이 다. 따라서, 피고가 이 사건 교환사채를 취득한 것에 대하여 원고가 특수관계자인 XX 산업에 업무와 관련 없이 자금을 대여한 것으로 보아 이 사건 처분을 한 것은 적법하, 이와 다른 원고의 이 부분 주장은 이유가 없다.

(2) As to the assertion of violation of the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation

㈎ 중복세무조사 해당 여부

1) The term "tax investigation" means an act of asking questions to taxpayers, etc. according to their official needs and investigating related documents, books, and other things or ordering them to submit them by exercising the right of questioning and questioning or questioning as stipulated in each tax law (see, e.g., Article 122 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Regulations on the Management of Investigations (National Tax Service’s Directive). The legislative intent of the rules on supporting duplicate tax audits as stipulated in Article 81-3 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act and Article 13 of the Regulations on the Management of Investigations is not only to infringe upon taxpayers’ freedom of business, and to prevent abuse of tax investigations by tax authorities due to the risk of arbitrary tax investigations by

Therefore, in full view of the relevant provisions, duplicate tax investigations are not allowed unless they fall under the exceptional cases prescribed in Article 81-3(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and each subparagraph of Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and where it is confirmed that a duplicate tax investigation has been conducted even after the commencement of the tax investigation, the tax authority shall take necessary measures, such as withdrawal of the investigation and the withdrawal of the investigation team (Article 13(1) of the Regulations on the Management of Investigation Affairs), and it is reasonable to view that the tax authority may not re-examine the part of the investigation conducted

However, it does not constitute an investigation to be prohibited in accordance with the principle of prohibition of double tax investigations, on-site business trips and verifications for the handling of complaints, or on-site verifications for the handling of tax evasion reporting materials, taxation data, etc.

The proviso of Article 13(1) and Article 2(2) of this Regulation.

2) As to the instant case, the facts of the recognition as above and the evidence mentioned above, Gap Nos. 14 to 16

In full view of the following circumstances, namely, ① although the period of investigation of the first tax investigation was 199 business years, there was an investigation of all matters within five years, the imposition system was ordinarily conducted at the time of the tax investigation, and the investigation was conducted from 1997 to 2001, to the 2001 business year of the Plaintiff; ② the investigation of the acquisition of exchangeable bonds was conducted at the time of the first tax investigation; ② the investigation was conducted on the acquisition of the instant exchangeable bonds during the 2001 business year; ② the investigation was conducted at the time of the first tax investigation, at the request of the Inspector General of the Daegu District Tax Office, on the necessity of the acquisition of the instant exchangeable bonds and the process of the first tax investigation, etc., but no measures were taken thereafter; ③ At the time of the second tax investigation, the Seoul Regional Tax Office had the Plaintiff undergo the second tax investigation upon the request of the Inspector General of the Daegu District Tax Office to submit data on the acquisition of the instant exchangeable bonds and the minutes of the board of directors, etc.

The second tax investigation does not constitute an exception under the above provision.

2) Whether there is clear evidence to prove a suspicion of tax evasion under Article 81-4(2)1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

The phrase “case where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion” refers to the case where there is already existed such evidence as to the overlapping tax evasion to the extent that it justified the overlapping tax investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Du12070, Jun. 2, 2006). In light of the fact that the Defendant asserted that it was prepared before the secondary tax investigation, the review of the state-type change document review protocol (No. 13-1) of the Plaintiff asserted that it was prepared before the secondary tax investigation and the assessment protocol of taxation following the acquisition of exchangeable bonds and the exercise of rights (No. 13-2) do not include the examination protocol or date of the acquisition of exchangeable bonds in this case, so it is unclear whether the above protocol was prepared before the secondary tax investigation, and the Defendant appears to be not to fall under the case where it appears to fall under the case No. 13-3 grounds for tax evasion by taking into account the details of the issuance of exchangeable bonds and the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s sale of the pertinent bonds by the Seoul Exchange Co.

㈐ 중복조사금지원칙에 위배한 세무조사에 근거한 부과처분의 적법 여부

In light of the fact that the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation aims to guarantee taxpayers' rights in the procedural aspect through the taxpayer's freedom of business and the prevention of privacy infringement and the prior control over arbitrary tax investigation, taxation disposition based on the tax investigation that violates the principle of prohibition of duplicate investigation is illegal (Supreme Court Decision 2004Du204 Decided June 2, 2006).

12070 see Supreme Court Decision 12070

㈑ 소결

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the second tax investigation constitutes a double tax investigation prohibited under Article 81-4 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is justified within the scope of "2001 business year where the tax items of the first tax investigation and the period of the second tax investigation overlap."

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and Nass money

Therefore, it is dismissed as per Disposition. It is so decided as per Disposition.