Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap1211, 2013.04

National High Court Decision 2010west0438 ( December 31, 2010)

Market price of stocks acquired by conversion of bonds into equity

Even if the disposal of stocks acquired through conversion of investment is restricted, the market price shall apply if the stock exchange makes a normal transaction with a third party and there is a price generally traded with a third party provided for in statutes.

Article 41 (Acquisition Value of Assets)

2013Nu23081 Revocation of Disposition of Corporate Tax Imposition

AA Life Insurance Corporation

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap1211 decided July 4, 2013

October 7, 2015

October 28, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of imposition of corporate tax of KRW 7,614,742,060 against the plaintiff on June 26, 2009 (from April 1, 2004 through March 31, 2005) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ 2 from the 1st [Attachment 1] to the 5,490 '5,450' in the 6th line to the 5,490.

○ The second line "7,614,742,00 won" under the third line is "7,614,742,00 won".

○ The following shall be added to the 7th page 2:

“6) In the lawsuit demanding revocation of disposition imposing corporate tax, etc., filed by BBB among the above six financial institutions, Supreme Court Decision 2012Du16084 Decided August 27, 2015 held that it is legitimate to calculate corporate tax by deeming the closing price of an exchange on the date of debt-to-equity swap as the market price of stocks, and as such, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to exempt additional tax on the ground that there is a conflict of opinion in interpretation, and thus, it is lawful to impose additional tax on the corporate tax.”

○ The following shall be added to the 10th page 15:

“On the other hand, the business year under the Corporate Tax Act is stipulated by the articles of incorporation, etc. of a corporation, unless otherwise stipulated by the law, so even if the amount of unpaid tax may vary according to the same business year, it may not be unreasonable against the equity of taxation.”

○ The following shall be added to the second page of the 11st page:

Even if the corporate tax of the business year to which the disposal date belongs is increased due to the actual increase in income at the time of disposal of the instant shares, corporate tax is set forth as the period of taxation that imposes on income for each business year, and Article 76(1)3 of the Corporate Tax Act stipulates as the period from the day after the payment deadline to the day of voluntary payment or the date of notification of the unpaid payment period for calculating the additional payment for the business year, and Article 76(1)3 of the Corporate Tax Act provides as the period of taxation that imposes on income for each business year. However, in light of the fact that it cannot be deemed as being the same as voluntary payment because the acquisition price was reduced at the time of disposal but it cannot be viewed as having been paid the corporate tax due to the increase in disposal profit at the time of disposal, it cannot be said

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and it is so decided as per Disposition.