Whether a criminal case judgment falls under the grounds for subsequent request for correction

Since the final and conclusive judgment in a criminal case does not immediately invalidate or cancel a transaction act immediately, the judgment in a criminal case does not constitute grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction.

Article 45-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's rejection disposition against the plaintiff on November 21, 2006 against the plaintiff on May 17, 2007 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 6, 2003, 200, ○○ Stock Company (the trade name was changed to ○○ Stock Company on March 7, 2003; hereinafter the non-party Company) issued new shares with 3,900,000 shares issued (the issue value per one share). The Plaintiff, as a shareholder, acquired 140,000 shares, and 3,360,000 shares, but did not cultivate forfeited shares.

B. As a result of the investigation of corporate tax and stock transfer against the non-party company, the director of ○○○ Regional Tax Office did not cultivate forfeited stocks when the non-party company issued new stocks at a price lower than the market price. The Kim○○○, who renounced the acquisition of new stocks, deemed that the Plaintiff received 3,493,273,000 won from Kim○○ on the ground that there was a special relationship with the Plaintiff as a controlling shareholder of the non-party company, and notified the Defendant on May 17, 2005, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 1,801,291,291,210.

C. The Plaintiff filed an objection against the foregoing decision, thereby reducing KRW 400,578,30 from the amount of the initially determined gift tax (the remaining part of the disposition imposing gift tax was the first disposition). The Plaintiff filed an appeal for a national tax again, but was dismissed on July 31, 2006.

D. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Embezzlement) on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years and six months on October 21, 2005 by the Seoul Central District Court. While both the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed, the above judgment on August 25, 2006 (hereinafter related judgment) became final and conclusive after both of the appeals were dismissed.

E. Upon the final and conclusive judgment on September 22, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction against the Defendant for revocation of gift tax notified to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 45-2(1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes. On November 21, 2006, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the said claim for correction on the ground that it does not fall under the foregoing provision.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence No. 1 to 1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence No. 2

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's assertion

국세기본법 제45조의2 제2항 제1호에서 후발적 경정청구사유로 규정한 ＇판결＇은 그문언상 ＇확정판결＇을 의미하는바, 관련 판결은 아직 확정되지 않았고, 위 규정상의 판결은 관련 판결과 형사판결은 해당되지 아니하므로 원고의 이 사건 소는 부적법하다.

B. Determination

As seen above, the relevant judgment is not only finalized on August 25, 2006, but also the issue of determining the legitimacy of the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction, which constitutes the grounds for filing a subsequent claim for correction, and the rejection disposition based on the existence or absence of a subsequent claim for correction. Therefore, the Defendant’s main safety defense is without merit

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The original disposition becomes final and conclusive as different transaction, act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax by the judgment, and thus does not constitute a claim for correction pursuant to Article 45-2 (2) 1 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, even if it becomes the subject of

(b) Related statutes;

○ Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007)

○ Request for correction, etc. under Article 45-2

(2) Any person who has filed the tax base return within the legal return term, or who has the tax base and amount of the national tax decided upon, may request the decision or rectification within two months from the date of knowing that the cause has occurred, regardless of the period as referred to in paragraph (1), in the following cases:

1. Where the transactions or act, etc. which is the basis of calculation of the tax base and amount of tax in the initial return, determination or correction, becomes final and conclusive as different by a final judgment (including any reconciliation or other act having the same effect as the judgment) in the lawsuit against it;

C. Determination

According to Article 45-2 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007), where transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis of calculating the tax base and the amount of tax in the initial return, decision or correction, becomes final and conclusive as different by the judgment in the lawsuit related thereto, a request for correction of the decision, etc. may be made. In the taxation procedure, the taxable income is confirmed for proper and fair taxation, while the judgment in a criminal case is against the judgment on the crime of tax evasion, since even though the judgment on the crime of tax evasion is rendered, the so-called so-called crime income amount is confirmed under the premise of the determination of its establishment and proper punishment, the two are different purpose and the procedure for its determination is separately determined, and the final judgment in a criminal case alone does not immediately invalidate or cancel transaction under the private law, it is reasonable to deem that the judgment in a criminal case is not included

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the judgment, which is a criminal judgment, becomes final and conclusive does not have any reason without any further review (including criminal cases in the judgment under the above provision, even if it is included in the case of a criminal case, the original disposition is a taxation requirement that the shareholder, who is a related party, has relatively a profit according to the non-party company’s offering of new shares and the shareholder’s forfeited rights entitled to new shares. The final judgment acknowledged that the beneficial shareholder embezzled the portion equivalent to the original nominal trust value of the shares by offering new shares without returning the shares trusted by the beneficial shareholder, without considering the validity of the above decision itself. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be seen as final and conclusive because the transaction or act, etc., which served as the basis for calculating the tax base and the amount of tax, is different

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Criminal facts (the part related to the plaintiff)

Defendant ○○○ is a representative director of ○○○○ Company (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”) holding 3.03% of the outstanding shares of ○○○○ Company from May 2000 to January 2003 (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) and was working as a representative director of ○○○ Company (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”) and was working as a company’s representative director on or around March 14, 2003, when engaging in the business of determining important policies, managing funds, and executing execution, etc. of the company; Defendant ○○△△△△△ (a director and certified public accountant of ○○○○○, a director of ○○○○, and Defendant ○○○○○, a director of ○○○○○○, and a person who worked as ○○○○○○○ as a representative director of ○○○○○.

Defendant ○○, △△△, and Gindo, are:

2001.8.경 서울지방법원 파산부에서 당시 법정관리 진행 중인던 ○○○에 대하여 M&A; 방식으로 법정관리절차를 종결하기로 결정하자, 피해자인 ○○의 대표이사인 라○○는 ○○○을 인수하기로 하되 다만, ○○은○○○의 건물관리용역 업무를 담당하던 회사였던 관계로 인해 구 사주가 이사건 M&A;와 관련성이 있다는 오해를 받아 M&A;를 추진함에 있어 장애가 될 수 있다는 등의 우려 때문에 직접 전면에 나서지 못하고 그 대신에 별도로 주간사를 내세워 ○○은 주간사의 주식을 인수하여 대주주가 되고 주간사가 컨소시엄을 구성하여 전면에 나서 ○○○을 인수하는 방법을 취하기로 하여 정○○를 통하여 2001. 9. 7. 당시 라○○가 회장으로 있는 ○○○주식회사 명의로 당시 ○○○의 대표이사였던 피고인 유○○와 사이에, ＇구창은 위 유○○ 에게 ○○○의 M&A; 수행을 지원하기 위한 경비 조로 3억 원을 여러 차례 나누어 제공하고 인수 성공시 ○○○의 주식과 경영권은 ○○이 갖되 피고인 유○○에게는 성공보수금 조로 ○○○의 지분 중 6%를 지급 한다｀는 취지로 합의를 하였고, 이에 따라 구창은 2001. 10.경부터 2002. 3.경까지 수회에 걸쳐 경비 3억 원 모두를 피고인 유○○○에게 지급하는 한편, 2001 .9.경 박○○를 통하여 소개받은 미국에서 금융관련 일을 하였던 피고인 김○○과 사이에 ○○○ 인수 작업에 소요되는 외자를 유치해 오고 인수작업 성공 시에는 피고인 김○○은 전문경영인으로서 ○○○ 경영에 관여하고 ○○은 이를 위한 활동경비 지급 등 모든 지원을 하기로 하였고, 이에 따라 ○○은 2001. 10.경 피고인 김○○으로부터 매매계약 및 명의신탁에 필요한 일체의 서류에 사용할 목적의 서명 확인서를 받아 이를 공증을 하는 한편, 2001. 10경 ○○○의 총 주식 10만 주 중 박○○ 등 6인 명의로 되어있는 주식 4만 주를 6,800만 원에, 2002. 2. 7.경 유○○의 명의로 되어 있는 주식 4만 주를 2억 원에 각 피고인 김 ○○ 명의로 매수하고 대금을 지급하여 ○○○ 주식 8만 주를 피고인 김○○ 명의로 취득하였고, 다만 명의개서에 있어서는 박○○ 등 6인 명의로 되어 있는 주식을 매수한 부분에 대하여는 2002. 3.경 피고인 김○○ 앞으로 명의개서를 하였으나 피고인 유○○ 명의로 되어 있는 주식을 매수한 부분에 대하여는 피고인 유○○가 ○○○의 대표로서 대외적으로 어느 정도 주식을 보유하고 있어야 한다며 명의개서를 ○○○ 인수 성공 시까지 한시적으로 유보해 달라고 요구하여 총 8만 주 중 나머지 4만 주에 대한 명의개서가 유보되고 있는 상태에서,

Around June 2002, 200, ○○○○, the representative of ○○○○○○○, successful acquisition of KRW 315 billion, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in order to take a measure such as changing the title of 80,00 shares in the name of Defendant Kim○○ and Defendant ○○○○○○○ in the name of Defendant Kim○○○ in order to cancel the title trust of 80,00 shares on July 20, 202. While Defendant ○○ demanded a transfer of title to the above 40,00 shares under his name, Defendant U.○○○’s request was made on the same 200,000,000 won, and Defendant ○○○○○’s request was made on the 20,000,000 won following the success of ○○○○○○○’s acquisition, and Defendant ○○’s request was unilaterally changed to the same ○○○○.

On the other hand, ○○○○ who is aware of such circumstances has reached an agreement on October 18, 2002 and December 10, 2010 of the same year with 20% of the remaining shares of ○○○○, and between ○○○○ and △△△△△△△ in this case, on a successful basis, set the contingent remuneration at KRW 6.9 billion (the amount which was deducted from 6% of ○○ Capital) to ○○○○ and △△△△ in this case, and confirmed that ○○ was a major shareholder of ○○○○○ and has the management right of ○○○○○○. ○○○○ and △△△△△△△ in this year agreed on the remaining shares of ○○○○○○○ and 20 million, which were owned by ○○○○○ and △△△△ in this case, and paid the contingent remuneration to ○○○○ and △△△△△ in a state of 100 million in each of shares.

Therefore, ○○○○, a victim, obtained 80,00 shares of ○○○○ from Defendant U.S. to secure control over weekly affairs while making ○○○○○○○ as a main agent. However, only the name was a temporary trust in the future between Defendant Kim○ and Defendant U.S., after success in ○○○○○○’s acquisition, the right to the shares was held by ○○○○ upon the termination of the title trust on July 20, 2002, and the shares issued on the above 80,00 shares around October 23, 2002. Thus, Defendant U.S.○○ and Defendant Kim○○ was in custody for ○○○○○○, a title truster and a beneficial shareholder, and thus, even though it was returned, the above shares of 80,000 shares equivalent to 10,000 shares of ○○○○○ and Defendant Kim○○ were still in the name of Defendant U.S. ○○ and Defendant.

On December 2, 2002, the first floor of the ○○○○ building located in Seoul, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a 11st floor of the 11st floor of the 11st floor of the 11st floor of the 2002, where the executive director is the executive director, disposing of 80,00 shares by means of transferring the said shares to ○○○○○○○○○○, but it is insufficient to recover the rights of the said 80,00 shares by disposing of the said shares to the extent that the said 80,000 shares were sufficiently increased to the extent that it does not have control over the ○○○○○○○○○, a large amount of new shares that were already owned by the 4th floor of the 200,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,00,000.

2002. 12. 24. 피고인 유○○, 같은 유△△은 이미 이행 중에 있는 ○○과의 합의를 돌연 해지한다면서 이미 수령한 위 20억 원의 배액인 40억 원을 ○○상호저축은행으로부터 무담보로 대출받아 일방적으로 ○○의 계좌에 입금한 후, 2002. 12. 30. ○○에 전혀 연락하지 아니한 채 임시주주총회를 개최하여 정관상 발행예정주식총수를 100만 주에서 600만주로 변경하고, 다음날인 2002. 12. 31. 피고인 변○○은 자본금 5,000만 원인 ○○○ 주식회사(이하'○○○'라고 한다)를 설립하는 한편, 피고인 유○○, 같은 유△△은 신주 390만 주의 발행결의를 함에 있어 필요한 신주인수대금 195억 원이 전혀 준비조차 되어 있지 않은 상태에서 6일 후인 2003.1.6.까지 신주인수대금을 납입하기로 결의하고, 청약일도 2003.1.6. 09:30부터 같은 날 13:00까지로 하며, 당시 ○○○의 1주당 가치는 181,996원(신주발행 전의 ○○○의 자산가치의 합계액인 18,199,573,036원 ÷ 구주의 합계인 10만주)에 이를 정도로 높은 가치가 있었음에도 그보다 턱없이 낮은 가격인 1주당 액면금 5,000원에 발행하는 내용의 이사회 결의를 한 후, 2003. 1. 4. 각자의 기여도에 따른 범행수익 배분을 위해 피고인 유○○는 배당된 신주 중 178만주는 포기하고 나머지 40만 주만 인수하기로 하고, 피고인 유△△은 배당된 신주 중 16,000주는 포기하고 나머지 14만 주만 인수하기로 하고, 피고인 김○○은 배당된 신주 156만 주 전체의 인수를 포기하는 방법으로 총 신주인수비율 및 각자의 지분비율을 조정한 후(그로 인해 ○○의 지분비율은 80%에서 12.5%로 감소)2003. 1. 6. 피고인 유○○ , 유△△에게 배당된 전체 신주 54만 주에 대한 인수대금 27억 원을 ○○○이 ○○상호저축은행으로부터 대출받은 돈을 피고인 유○○, 같은 유△△이 차용하여 납입한 후, 2003. 1. 7. 피고인 변○○은 자신이 인수 할 ○○○의 전 주식 64만주를 담보로 ○○상호저축은행 등 3개 저축은행에서 178억 원을 대출받고, 같은 날 위 한미빌딩 11층 소재 ○○○ 사무실( ○○○주식회사 서울연락사무소가 ○○○ 사무실로 변경)에서 피고인 유○○, 같은 유△△은 ○○○의 기존주식 10만 주 및 증자된 주식 54만주 등 총 주식 64만 주 전체를 ○○○에 매도함에 있어 먼저, 피고인 유○○ 및 같은 유△△의 주식 60만 주(피고인 유○○명의의 주식 45만 6,000주 + 피고인 유△△명의의 주식 14만 4,000주)를 대금 226억 8,840만 원으로 정하여 매도하되, 당시 ○○○의 경영권은 ○○○측이 행사하고 있어 ○○○이 아직 ○○○의 경영권을 행사하지 못하고 있는 상태에 있었으므로 일단 매수대금의 일부인 165억 3,100만 원만을 지급하고 ○○○가 ○○○ 경영권을 행사하게 될 때에 나머지 잠금 71억 5,740만 원을 지급하는 것으로 단서조항을 넣어 계약을 하고, 피고인 변○○으로부터 위 165억 3,100만 중 피고인 유○○의 ○○은행 게좌 (계좌번호○○○-○○-○○○○○)로 125억 6,356만 원을 피고인 유△△의 ○○은행 계좌(계좌번호○○○-○○-○○○○○)로 39억 6,744만 원을 일부 매매대금 명목으로 각 입금받고, 피고인 김○○ 명의의 ○○○ 4만 주에 대하여는 매매대금을 7억 9,600만원으로 정하여 ○○○에 매도하여 피고인 유○○, 같은 유△△이 개설해준 피고인 김○○의 ○○은행계좌(계좌번호○○○-○○-○○○○○)로 7억 9,600만 원을 입금받는 등으로 피해자 ○○○ 소유의 위 ○○○ 주식 8만 주의 시가 14,559,658,428원 상당{신주발행 전 ○○ 소유 ○○○ 주식가치 : 신주발행 전 ○○○ 자산가치 합계액 X(8만 주/10만주)}을 임의처분하여 이를 횡령하였다.