The appraised value per share before the capital increase shall be based on the payment date of stock price.

The board of directors passed a resolution to issue new shares and the issuance of new shares following the resolution cannot be deemed to fall under the allotment by the method of public offering of securities, which is an exception to deemed donation due to capital increase. As long as there was explicit provision that the assessment per share prior to the capital increase is based on the payment date of stocks, it is difficult to deem that the practices of national tax administration have been established

2011Guhap3594 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

port of origin

May 31, 2012

July 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked all the imposition of each gift tax stated in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) BB waterway Co., Ltd., a KOSDAQ-listed corporation (former trade name: CCC, and hereinafter referred to as 'non-party company'), adopted a resolution on April 10, 2007 to issue 000 won per share to all 49 persons, including the Plaintiff, of registered ordinary shares 4,262, and 430 shares by holding a board of directors on April 10, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff participated in the above subscription to new shares on May 4, 2007 and purchased 121,730 shares on the same day and paid 000 won for the acquisition price on the same day, and 49 members acquired 4,262,430 shares in total, and paid 00 won in total.

C. As of May 3, 2007, as of May 3, 2007, the defendant calculated the "value per share before the date of payment for shares to the non-party company," the value of which was 00 won, and thus the plaintiff acquired new shares at a price below the market price. As a result, the plaintiff deemed 00 won as a donation from the existing shareholders through capital increase for shares, and on March 11, 201, the plaintiff decided and notified the plaintiff on March 11, 201 pursuant to Article 39 (1) 1 (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007, and hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") of the gift tax totaling 43,370,390, and 390 won (including 16,191,133 won) (hereinafter referred to as the "the disposition in this case").

D. On March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on August 26, 2011.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 and 4 (including each number), and the whole purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) In a case where Article 39(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that if new shares are allocated by means of a public offering of new shares pursuant to Article 2(3) of the former Securities and Exchange Act (amended by Act No. 8635, Aug. 3, 2007; hereinafter the same), the amount equivalent to the profits gained by being allocated at a price lower than the market price shall be excluded from the gift tax assessment subject, but the Defendant arbitrarily reduced the amount of the profits gained by being allocated at a price lower than the market price to be exempted from the gift tax subject to gift tax, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition

2) In calculating the capital increase pursuant to Article 29(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23591, Feb. 2, 2012; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”), the Defendant issued the instant disposition in violation of the principle of prohibition of retroactive taxation by calculating the “value per share before the capital increase” as of the payment date, unlike the practices of the existing national tax administration based on the date of the publication of the capital increase (as of April 10, 2007).

3) Article 39(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the gift tax shall be imposed as of May 4, 2007, and the amount of gift by donor shall be calculated according to the share ownership ratio based on May 4, 2007, which was the payment date for share capital, based on the share ownership ratio based on the share ownership ratio as of May 4, 2007. However, the defendant calculated the amount of gift by donor based on the share list as of December 31, 2006.

4) As for the capital increase in the method of allocating the third party, the Plaintiff calculated the “value per share before the capital increase” based on the public notice date of capital increase in accordance with the practices of national tax administration, the Plaintiff’s assessment of the stocks acquired by the Plaintiff based on the date of the public notice of capital increase and did not report and pay gift tax because it did not incur any profit from the capital increase. Therefore, there was a justifiable reason not to mislead the Plaintiff into neglecting its duty. Therefore, the penalty

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s first argument

가) 구 상속세및증여세법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목 및 다목은 법인이 자본을 증가시키기 위하여 신주를 시가보다 낮은 가액으로 발행하는 경우 당해 법인의 주주가 아닌 자가 당해 법인으로부터 신주를 직접 배정받음으로써 이익을 얻은 경우에 당해 이익에 상당하는 금액을 그 이익을 얻은 자의 증여재산가액으로 하여 증여세를 부과하도록 규정하면서，다만 구 증권거래법에 의한 주권상장법인 또는 협회등록법인이 구 증권거래법 제2조 제3항의 규정에 의한 유가증권의 모집방법으로 신주를 배정하는 경우에는 이를 제외하도록 규정하고 있다. 구 증권거래법 제2조 제3항은 '유가증권의 모집이라 함은 대통령령이 정하는 바에 따라 신규로 발행되는 유가증권의 취득의 청약을 권유함을 말 한다'고 규정하고 있고，구 증권거래법 시행령(2008.1. 18.대통령령 제20551호로 개정되기 전의 것，이하 같다) 제2조의4 제1항은 구 증권거래법 제2조 제3항의 규정에 의한 유가증권의 모집을 함에 있어서는 신규로 발행되는 유가증권의 취득의 청약을 권유받는 자의 수가 50인 이상이어야 한다고 규정하고 있고， 제3항은 위 50인의 수를 산정함에 있어서는 당해 취득 청약의 권유를 하는 날부터 과거 6월 이내에 당해 유가증권과 동일한 종류의 유가증권에 대하여 모집 또는 매출에 의하지 아니하고 청약의 권유를 받은 자를 합산하되 발행인과 특수관계에 있는 자 등 각 호에 열거한 자를 제외 한다고 규정하고 있으며， 제5항은 제3항에서 청약의 권유라 함은 권유받는 자에게 유가증권을 취득하도록 하기 위하여 신문 ・ 방송 ・ 잡지 등을 통한 광고， 안내문 ・ 홍보전 단 등 인쇄물의 배포， 투자설명회의 개최， 전자통신 등의 방법으로 유가증권을 발행 또는 매도한다는 사실을 알리거나 취득의 절차를 안내하는 활동을 말한다고 규정하고 있다. 한편，구 증권거래법 시행령 제2조의4 제4항은 제3항의 규정에 의하여 산정한 결과 청약의 권유를 받는 자의 수가 50인 미만으로서 유가증권의 모집에 해당되지 아니 할 경우에도 당해 유가증권이 발행일로부터 1년 이내에 50인 이상의 자에게 양도될 수 있는 경우로서 금융감독위원회가 정하는 전매기준에 해당하는 때에는 유가증권의 모집으로 본다고 규정하고 있다. 위 규정들을 종합하여 보면， 구 상속세및증여세법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목 및 다목은 법인이 자본을 증가시키기 위하여 신주를 시가보다 낮은 가액으로 발행하는 경우에 이를 배정받은 자는 시가와의 차액 상당의 이득을 얻는 것으로 보아 그 이득 상당액을 증여 재산가액에 포함시킴으로써 증여세를 부과하도록 하는 한편，구 증권거래법에 따른 유 가증권 모집방법에 의한 신주배정의 경우에는 이를 제외하도록 함으로써，공모의 경우 에는 할인발행으로 인하여 그 이득을 취하는 자가 있더라도 증여세 부과를 면제하도록 하고 있는바，이는 주권상장법인 또는 협회등록법인이 구 증권거래법 등 관계법령에 따라 공모절차에 의하여 신주를 발행하는 경우에는 할인발행을 하더라도 불특정 다수 인 간에 한국증권거래소 또는 협회중개시장 내에서 공정한 경쟁매매과정을 거쳐 다시 적정한 가액이 결정되는 것이고，일반인 및 제3자의 투자보호를 위하여 정당한 방법으로 공시・홍보 등을 취하게 된다는 점과 또 일정한 한도 내에서의 할인발행은 구 증권 거래법 등 관계법령이 주권상장법인 또는 협회등록법인의 자금조달을 용이하게 하기 위하여 허용하는 것인 점 등을 고려하여， 이러한 경우는 주식의 발행가액이 비록 시가 보다 낮게 결정된다 하더라도 주권상장법인 또는 협회등록법인이 그 차액 상당을 주식 을 배정받은 제3자에게 증여한 것이라고 보기 어려워 증여세의 과세대상에서 이를 제외하려는 취지라고 봄이 상당하다. 한편， 구 증권거래법 시행령 제2조의4 제4항에서 정하는 이른바 간주모집 규정은 과거에 발행인이 50인 미만의 소수인을 상대로 1차로 신주를 발행한 다음 이를 다시 50인 이상에게 2차적으로 전매하는 경우 등은 공모의 개념에 포함되지 않아 투자자보 호를 위한 발행공시규제를 회피하는 것을 방지하기 위하여 1998. 2. 24. 위 시행령 개 정 당시 새롭게 도입된 제도이므로，구 상속세및증여세법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목 및 다목 소정의 저가발행으로 인한 이득을 증여재산가액에 포함시키지 않는 예외사유인 '유가증권의 모집방법에 의한 배정'에는 투자자보호 목적으로 발행공시 규제를 회피하는 것을 방지하기 위한 간주모집에 의한 배정은 포함되지 않고，구 증권거래법 시행령 제2조의 4 제1항 소정의 신규로 발행되는 유가증권의 취득의 청약을 권유받은 자의 수가 50인이상인 일반적인 공모의 경우만이 위 예외사유에 해당하는 것으로 제한적으로 해석하는 것이 구 상속세및증여세법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목 및 다목 규정의 취지에 부합한다. 나아가 구 상속세및증여세법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목 및 다목 소정의 저가발행으로 인한 이득을 증여재산가액에 포함시키지 않는 예외사유인 '유가증권의 모집방법에 의한 배 정'에 해당되기 위해서는 구 증권거래법 시행령 제2조의4 제5항의 규정에 따른 청약의 권유절차， 즉 신문 ・ 방송 ・ 잡지 등을 통한 광고， 안내문 ・ 홍보전단 등 인쇄물의 배포，투자설명회의 개최， 전자통신 등의 방법에 국한되는 것은 아니나 적어도 이에 준하거나 이와 유사한 방법으로 유가증권을 발행 또는 매도한다는 사실을 알리거나 취득의 절차를 안내하는 활동이 있어야만 할 것이다. 또한 세법은 다양하면서도 급변하는 경제현상을 그 규율대상으로 하는 한편 여러 가지 경제정책적 목적 및 사회보장적 목적을 수행하고 있으므로，조세법률주의가 지향하는 법적 안정성 및 예측가능성을 크게 해치지 않는 범위 내에서는 입법의 동기， 취지 및 목적 등을 고려한 합목적적인 해석은 허용되어야 하는바，구 상속세및증여세법 제39조 제1항 제1호 가목 및 다목을 위와 같이 해석하는 것이 조세법률주의나 엄격해석의 원 칙에 반한다고 볼 수 없다.

B) On April 10, 2007, the board of directors passed a resolution on the issuance of new shares only with respect to 49 persons including the plaintiff on April 10, 2007. Accordingly, the issuance of new shares cannot be deemed as falling under the "distribution by the method of securities offering, which is an exception to the constructive donation due to capital increase by issuing new shares under Article 39(1)1 (a) and (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Moreover, there is no evidence to deem that the non-party company had gone through the procedure of soliciting the offer under Article 2-4(5) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act, and there is no reason to believe

2) Judgment on the second argument by the Plaintiff

A) Article 29(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the calculation of profits which are deemed to have been donated at a low price under Article 39(1)1(a) and (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act means the amount calculated by multiplying the value obtained by subtracting the subscription price per stock from (the total number of outstanding stocks before increase + the number of new stocks increased by increase in capital) to the value obtained by (the number of new stocks x the number of stocks increased by increase in capital) (the number of new stocks x the number of stocks increased by increase in capital) under Article 39(1)1 and (c) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Article 29(4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the calculation of profits under Article 29(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be based on the 90th anniversary of the number of forfeited stocks or the number of new stocks to the taxpayer without any special reasons for calculating the subscription price under Article 29(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act.

B) Under the formula of Article 29(3)1 through 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, "in the case of listed corporations and KOSDAQ-listed corporations under Article 63(1)1 (b) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the value per share before the capital increase shall be equal to the average value of the closing market of the Korea Securities and Futures Exchange published by the day before the date when the right due to the capital increase has occurred. According to the purport of the entry and pleading in subparagraph 3, it is reasonable for the Commissioner of the National Tax Service to regard the issue of the above basic provisions as the date when the fact has been announced. However, since the calculation of profits under Article 29(4)3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which was newly established on December 30, 202, it is difficult to view that the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act has the same reasons as the date the capital increase had been made on the basis of the payment of profits under Article 29(1)3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Act.

3) Judgment on the third assertion by the Plaintiff

A) According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence 3, Eul evidence 7, and Eul evidence 2, and 3 (including each number), the defendant, based on the non-party company's list of shareholders on December 31, 2006, and based on the obligation to report and declare under related Acts and subordinate statutes, the investigation of detailed changes in the shares from January 1, 2007 to May 4, 2007, and the total number of shares issued by the non-party company (hereinafter "controlling shareholders") were 1/100 or less of the total number of shares issued by the non-party company (hereinafter "controlling shareholders"), and the total number of shares issued by the non-party company was 30.7 billion won and less than 20.3 billion won and the total number of shares issued by the non-party company was 30.7 billion won and less than 20.3 billion won were 5 billion won and 30.3 billion won were 5 billion won and less than the total number of shares issued by the non-party company (hereinafter "non-party company").

B) The Plaintiff, as well as the 20G shareholders of the non-party company, did not secure the shareholders’ list as of May 4, 2007, and the 2G shareholders owned 5% or more of the total issued shares of the non-party company as of December 31, 2006, were disposed of by the non-party 1 and the shareholders holding less than 5% of the total issued shares of the non-party company, and the disposition of this case was unlawful as it violated the principle of substantial taxation and the burden of proof of taxation requirements. However, according to the above evidence and the whole arguments, the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 were not listed in the non-party 1 and the non-party 7 shareholders’ list for 0 years as of May 1, 2007, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were non-party 1 and the non-party 2G shares for 7 years or more as of May 4, 2007.

4) Judgment on the plaintiff's fourth argument

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of taxation rights and the realization of tax claims, a taxpayer’s intentional and negligent act is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the law when the taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, without justifiable grounds, and the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent act does not constitute a justifiable reason that does not constitute a breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Du3515, Aug. 20, 199; 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004). As seen earlier, health care for the instant case and general rules 39-29 and 29 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, “in the case of KOSDAQ-listed corporations, the appraised value per share before the date on which the taxpayer acquired rights”, but it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff’s tax liability was based on the provision under Article 4(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that the Plaintiff’s tax return should not be explicitly asserted on the date.

3. Conclusion

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