KNF Securities Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Mon, Attorney Lee In-bok et al., Counsel for defendant)

September 4, 2014

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 201Gahap23386 Decided August 21, 2012

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

(1) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 244,160,400 won with 5% interest per annum from May 16, 2012 to October 30, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

See The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. One-fifth of the total litigation costs is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendant.

3. (i)The provisional execution may be effected as provided for in paragraph 1;

Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 244,160,400 won with 5% per annum from July 10, 2004 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.

Purport of appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. Case summary

This case argues that the Plaintiff: (a) deemed the Defendant’s income during the period in which the Defendant served as the representative director from the Seoul Regional Tax Office (50 million won) to be recognized by the Defendant; and (b) received a notice of change in the amount of income added to the income; (c) paid the wage and salary income tax and resident tax (total amount of KRW 244,160,400) to be collected by the Plaintiff, a withholding agent, and sought a reimbursement of the amount of indemnity amount of KRW 244,160,400 and its delay damages.

The judgment of the first instance was accepted by the plaintiff's request, and the defendant raised an appeal subsequent to it.

B. Presumed factual basis

[Evidence A] 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13-2, 9-2, 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings to the National Tax Service

(i)The Party;

The plaintiff is a company whose purpose is investment trading business, investment brokerage business, trust business, investment advisory business, etc. under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and the defendant is the plaintiff (former trade name: the representative director of the Hannuri Investment Securities Bank) from September 30, 1997 to January 7, 199.

Dob. Recognition of the Defendant and the payment of the Plaintiff’s withholding tax amount

From April 26, 2004 to June 29, 2004, the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a regular tax investigation with respect to the plaintiff. The representative director of the plaintiff, who was the plaintiff's representative director, acquired a claim from the plaintiff to a low price through the transaction of right-to-pass claim that the defendant involved in a third party, and included the profit amount in the calculation of the plaintiff's gross income in the calculation of wrongful calculation, and recognized the defendant's income in the year of 1998, and notified the plaintiff of the change in the income amount on June 29, 2004. On July 12, 2004, the plaintiff paid additional wage and salary income tax of KRW 21,964,00 and resident tax of KRW 22,196,40 as withholding tax.

2. Issues of the instant case

A. Whether the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion

B. Existence of source tax liability to be borne by the Defendant

3. The judgment of this Court

A. Whether the appeal is lawful after subsequent completion

【Defendant’s Claim】

The defendant asserts that, on June 19, 2013, the first instance court did not know that the lawsuit was brought by public notice from the delivery of the complaint to the delivery of the judgment, and that, on the other hand, the non-party 3, who is the defendant's seat, visited the plaintiff's office and received the written notice of the first instance judgment from the plaintiff. Since the defendant confirmed this and subsequently filed an appeal, this constitutes a case where it is impossible for the defendant to observe the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to the defendant

【Counterclaim by the Plaintiff】

On June 19, 2013, when Nonparty 3 visited the Plaintiff’s office, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate with respect to the land and its ground buildings (location omitted) owned by the Defendant for provisional seizure of real estate in order to pay the amount of withholding tax according to the recognition of the Defendant at the time of June 19, 2013, and to preserve its claim for reimbursement, and completed its execution. The Defendant knew that the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive, and thus, the Defendant’s subsequent appeal filed after the lapse of the subsequent appeal period is unlawful.

[Judgment]

(i) The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as evidence (as evidence of Category A7, 10-1, 2, 11, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 6).

㈎ 원고는 1999. 6. 9. 피고가 1998. 9. 무렵부터 1998. 10. 무렵까지 대표이사로서의 충실의무나 경업금지의무 또는 증권회사의 임직원이 직무와 관련하여 알게 된 정보를 자기 이익을 위하여 이용할 수 없도록 한 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 2조로 폐지되었다, 이하 같다) 규정을 위반하여 원고의 상품인 아남반도체㈜(이하, ‘아남’이라 한다)가 발행하는 54회 무보증 사모사채(이하, ‘아남 사모사채’라 한다)를 피고가 거래하여 이익을 얻고, 이에 따라 원고로 하여금 사채거래로 이익을 얻을 영업기회를 상실하게 하는 손해를 입혔다고 주장하면서 피고에 대하여 손해배상(15억 3,710만 원)을 구하는 소( 서울중앙지방법원 99가합50472 )를 제기하고, 이를 보전하기 위하여 동숭동 토지와 건물에 대한 가압류를 신청하여 2003. 5. 12. 가압류결정(서울지방법원 2003카단87741) 을 받아 2003. 5. 15. 가압류등기를 마쳤다. 원고의 피고에 대한 손해배상소송의 제1심법원은 2003. 12. 24. 원고의 청구를 기각하였고, 원고가 이에 불복하여 항소하였으나 2004. 7. 13. 항소가 기각되었으며(서울고등법원 2004나8373) , 원고가 다시 이에 불복하여 상고하였으나 2005. 2. 22. 상고가 기각되어 (대법원 2004다44018 판결) 원고 패소판결이 그대로 확정되었다. 그 후 피고의 처가 운영하는 월간 객석의 직원인 소외 2는 2010. 가을 무렵 피고를 대신하여 원고에게 가압류를 해제하여 달라고 요청하였고, 원고는 2010. 10. 29. 가압류 해제를 신청하여 2010. 11. 9. 그 가압류등기가 말소되었다.

㈏ 원고는 2011. 9. 16. 피고에 대한 인정상여처분에 따라 원천징수세액을 납부함에 따른 구상금채권을 보전하기 위하여 피고 소유인 동숭동 토지와 건물에 대하여 가압류를 신청하여 2011. 10. 5. 가압류결정(서울중앙지방법원 2011카단4398) 을 받고 그 집행을 마쳤다. 그 후 원고는 2011. 10. 18. 이 사건 소를 제기하였고, 제1심법원은 공시송달의 방법으로 소장을 송달하여 소송을 진행한 다음 2012. 8. 21. 원고의 청구를 받아들이는 판결을 선고하였다.

㈐ 피고는 2013. 5. 30. 부동산가압류신청사건에 관한 기록의 열람과 복사를 신청하고, 피고의 국내 재산을 관리하는 소외 3으로 하여금 소외 2와 함께 동숭동 토지와 건물에 대한 가압류를 해결하기 위해서 원고의 사무실을 방문하도록 하였다. 소외 3과 소외 2는 2013. 6. 19. 원고의 준법감시인인 소외 4로부터 원고의 부동산가압류는 원고가 피고에 대한 원천징수세액을 납부함에 따른 구상금채권을 보전하기 위한 것이고, 원고가 본안사건인 제1심법원에서 승소판결을 받았으므로 가압류를 해제하여 줄 수 없다고 하면서 이 사건 제1심판결문을 복사하여 주었다.

㈑ 피고는 2013. 7. 3.에 이르러 추후보완항소를 제기하였다.

Unless there exist any special circumstances, in cases where the certified copy of the complaint and the certified copy of the judgment, etc. have been served by public notice, the defendant shall be deemed not to have been aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. Thus, the defendant may file an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion within two weeks from the date on which such cause ceases to exist, since the case falls within the time when the party or legal representative was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to any cause not attributable to him/her. The term "the date on which the cause ceases to exist" in this context refers to the time when the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and in ordinary cases except under special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the party or legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or legal representative was perusal of the records of the case or received new certified copy of the judgment by public notice (see

According to the facts found above, in the first instance court, a copy of the complaint and the original copy of the judgment are served by public notice to the defendant. The defendant confirmed the provisional seizure of the plaintiff on the land and buildings of the sublime, and obtained through Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 2 the notice from the plaintiff on June 19, 2013 and became aware that the judgment of the first instance was served by public notice. Accordingly, this constitutes a case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself, and the defendant filed an appeal subsequent to subsequent completion of July 3, 2013, which is within two weeks from June 19, 2013, and thus, the defendant's subsequent appeal is lawful. The defendant's above assertion has merit.

B. Existence of source tax liability to be borne by the Defendant

【Defendant’s Claim】

In calculating the Plaintiff’s corporate tax base, the Defendant asserts that the transaction subject to the setting aside of wrongful calculation in the Plaintiff’s corporate tax base does not constitute wrongful calculation, and that the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay wage and salary income tax or resident tax, which is the basic tax liability to be borne by the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s sale of the Plaintiff’s Anam privately placed bonds or the Defendant’s sale of the Anam privately placed bonds, does not fall under the calculation of wrongful calculation, and that the Defendant again purchased the bonds in his personal qualification and sold them to Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty Nonparty 1) and the Korea-UK in relation to the said transaction, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant in relation to the said transaction, but the judgment against the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, thereby stating that the transaction with respect to the Anam privately placed bonds is lawful and appropriate.

【Counterclaim by the Plaintiff】

The Plaintiff: (a) purchased all the Plaintiff’s ASEAN private equity bonds between third parties; (b) sold them again; and (c) the tax authorities determined that the Defendant received profit-sharing from the Plaintiff through the low-price transaction of the ASEAN private equity bonds; and (d) accordingly, determined that the Defendant received profit-sharing through the low-price transaction of the ASEAN private equity bonds as a result of the tax investigation by the tax authorities, and conducted wrongful calculation denial and disposal of income; and (b) even if the Plaintiff was lost in a lawsuit seeking damages, only civil issues, such as whether the Defendant violated his/her duties as the representative director or was a transaction disadvantageous to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant

[Judgment]

(1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged.

㈎ 원고는 1998. 9. 4. 원고의 대주주인 아남과 사이에 아남 사모사채 액면총액 100억 원을 인수수수료 35억 9,900만 원에 인수하기로 하는 총액인수 및 매출계약을 체결하고, 원고의 자금으로 이를 인수하여 원고의 상품계정에 입고하였다.

㈏ 원고와 아남은 총액인수 및 매출계약의 이면계약으로 질권자를 공란으로 하여 특정하지 않고 아남 사모사채 원리금을 피담보채권으로 하여 아남이 소유하고 있는 원고의 주식 198만 주(원고 발행주식 총수의 1/20을 넘는다)에 관하여 아남 사모사채를 취득하는 자에게 질권을 설정하고 주권을 교부하기로 하는 내용의 질권설정계약을 체결하였으며, 원고는 아남으로부터 그 주권을 교부받았다.

㈐ 원고는 1998. 9. 9. 소외 1(대판:소외인)과 소외 1(대판:소외인)이 경영하는 KPK에 대하여 아남 사모사채를 매매수익률 29%에 전부 매도하였고, 그 후 소외 1(대판:소외인), KPK, 서울창업투자㈜(1998. 12. 31. 기준으로 소외 1(대판:소외인), 피고, 원고가 15%씩의 지분을 가지고 있었다. 이하, ‘서울창투’라 한다), 팬-킴바코(Pan-KIMBAKO)의 매수, 매도를 거쳐 피고가 1998. 10. 10.부터 1998. 10. 15.까지 아남 사모사채를 매매수익률 27.97%에서 29.17%로 전부 매수하였다. 피고는 1998. 10. 13. 소외 1(대판:소외인)에게 아남 사모사채 액면가 37억 원 상당을, 1998. 10. 15. 고려아연에 대하여 아남 사모사채 액면가 63억 원 상당을 풋옵션 조건으로 매매수익률 20%에 매도하는 내용의 채권매매계약을 체결하고, 1998. 10. 13.부터 1998. 10. 16.까지 아남 사모사채 전부를 원고의 상품계좌로부터 동양증권의 상품계좌로 출고하였으며, 이로써 계산상 15억 3,071만 원의 매매차익이 발생하였다.

㈑ 피고는 이러한 거래 과정에서 1998. 9. 30. 서울창투에 요청하여 원고가 제공한 콜론 자금으로 아남 사모사채 액면가 60억 원 상당을 매수하도록 하였다가 1998. 10. 10.과 1998. 10. 14. 이를 피고에게 매도하도록 하였고, 그 무렵 원고와 아남이 이면계약으로 체결한 질권설정계약의 질권자로 서울창투를 기재하였으나 서울창투에 대해서는 질권의 목적물인 주권을 교부하지 않았다.

㈒ 아남은 1998. 10. 24. 경영상태가 악화되어 워크아웃(기업개선작업)을 신청하였고, 1998. 10. 27. 신용등급이 “D"에서 ”유보“로 변경되었으며, 1998. 11. 워크아웃 대상 기업으로 선정되었다.

㈓ 아남 사모사채 거래와 관련하여 원고가 피고를 상대로 제기한 손해배상소송에서 대법원(2005. 12. 22. 선고 2004다44018 판결) 은, 구 증권거래법 42조 , 구 증권거래법 시행령(2001. 7. 7 대통령령 제17291호로 변경되기 전의 것) 35조 2호 에 의하면 증권회사의 임원 및 직원은 누구의 명의로 하든지 본인의 계산으로 유가증권의 매매거래 또는 그 위탁을 하지 못하나, 예외적으로 사채권의 매매거래는 허용되고 있으므로 증권회사가 인수하여 매도한 사모사채를 그 증권회사의 대표이사가 매수 또는 매도하였다고 하더라도 그 대표이사가 자신의 이익을 도모하기 위하여 당초부터 사채의 인수 및 매매거래를 계획·조정하였다거나 부당하게 대표이사의 직위를 이용하여 매매거래를 하였다는 등의 특별한 사정이 없다면 그 매매거래는 개인 자격으로 한 것으로서 그것이 시장에서 다른 매매당사자와 공평한 조건에서 투명하게 시장수익률에 따라 한 것이라면 이를 대표이사의 임무에 위반하였다고 할 수는 없고, 상법 341조의3 에 의하면 회사는 발행주식 총수의 1/20을 초과하여 자기의 주식을 질권의 목적으로 받지 못하므로 원고가 아남 사모사채를 매도한 이후에 그 유통 과정에서 다시 이를 매수하는 것은 그 이면계약에 따라 자기주식을 질권의 목적물로 취득하는 것이 되어 허용되기 어려우므로 아남 사모사채의 전전 매매 과정에서 피고가 이를 거래하였다고 하여 원고의 영업기회를 박탈한 것이라고 할 수 없다고 하였다.

Where the person to whom the amount included in gross income belongs is an executive or employee in filing a return on, or determination or correction of, the corporate tax base, he/she shall be disposed of as bonus for the person to whom the income accrue (Article 67 of the Corporate Tax Act and Article 106 (1) 1 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act). A corporation shall withhold and pay labor income tax on the amount disposed of as bonus (Article 20 (1) 1 (c) and Article 127 (1) 4 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9897 of December 31, 2009). Such withholding system is an indirectly realized through the procedure that the source taxpayer is liable for withholding taxes in relation to the State, and it is reasonable to interpret that the person to whom the income tax has been disposed of has been disposed of, as well as where the person to whom the income tax has been disposed of without withholding taxes from the source taxpayer, is not aware of the scope of the tax amount paid for the source or the scope of the tax payment claim. This applies likewise to the person.

In addition, the "Calculation of Wrongful Acts" means the calculation of the act of reducing or excluding the tax burden incurred when a taxpayer takes the ordinary rational transaction form by taking the bypassing act, the multi-stage act and other abnormal transaction form, and the purpose of Article 52 of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for the denial of wrongful calculation under Article 88 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, is deemed to disregard the economic rationality by abusing all the forms of transactions with a corporation in a special relationship with a corporation under the pretext of the transaction with a corporation, and it is deemed unfair from a legal point of view that the person who has the authority to impose tax is deemed to have objectively reasonable income and to prevent the tax avoidance act. Determination of whether the economic rationality exists shall be made based on whether the transaction lacks the economic rationality in light of sound social norms and commercial practices (see Supreme Court Decision 95Nu18697, May 28, 1997). Meanwhile, it is determined that the calculation of the asset at a lower price than the market price under Article 88 (1) 3 or 98 of the Corporate Tax Act without consideration.

According to the above facts and the above facts, from September 9, 1998 to October 15, 1998, the Plaintiff’s goods were entirely purchased by the Defendant through Non-party 1 (non-party 1) and KPK, and Seoul Investment, and sold on October 13, 1998 and after consideration on October 15, 1998. The Plaintiff’s representative director, who was the Plaintiff’s representative director, made profits worth KRW 1.5 billion as profit-making profit-making bonds (within five days), and the Seoul Regional Tax Office rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making, 50 million won as profits-making profits-making profits-making, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making, 50,000 won as profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making profits-making, and the Defendant’s claim for the Plaintiff’s loss.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ASEAN private equity bonds violates the provisions of the Commercial Act prohibiting the quality of treasury stocks, thereby making a contract on the part of ASEAN private equity bonds. However, even if the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and Nonparty 1 (in the case of the Nonparty 1 (in the case of the Nonparty 1) are stockholders of Seoul Investment, and Nonparty 1 (in the case of the Nonparty 1 (in the case of the Nonparty 1), they are related to the Defendant. The Defendant purchased part of ASEAN private equity bonds with the funds offered by the Plaintiff at the request of Seoul Investment, and sold them to the Defendant. Although the Defendant sold ASEAN private equity bonds with the condition of put options, it appears that the Defendant’s purchase of part of ASEAN private equity bonds was 37 days (in the case of the Plaintiff’s possession of 5 days or less) and the Plaintiff’s sale of securities and investment for the purpose of putting profits on the Plaintiff’s sale of securities and investment in the form of 37 days (in the case of the Plaintiff’s sale of securities and investment in the form of 5 days).

4. Conclusion

If so, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff on May 16, 2012 (if two months have elapsed from the date of service by public notice in a foreign country) from May 16, 2012 (if two months have elapsed from the date of service by public notice in a foreign country), it is obvious that the copy of the complaint of this case containing a notice to perform the amount of indemnity 244,160,400 won and the amount of indemnity 244,40 won and the amount of indemnity 244,40 won are served by public notice (the date of service by public notice in a foreign country) (the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum from July 10, 2004, which is the defendant's recipient, who is the withholding agent who paid the wage and salary income tax from the original collection. However, the defendant is liable for delay from the day following the due date of receipt of the notice of performance by the defendant until October 30, 2014).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is without merit. The judgment of the first instance, which concluded otherwise, is unfair, and it is modified as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-sung (Presiding Judge)