Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap13535 ( December 06, 2012)

It is reasonable to see that any defect in a duty payment notice has been supplemented or cured.

Although the basis for calculation of gift tax is not explicitly stated in a tax notice, it seems clear that the basis for calculation of gift tax is not clearly stated in the notice of prior notice of prior notice of taxation, and it does not interfere with the decision of objection or objection to the tax disposition. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defect in the tax notice was supplemented or cured.

2012Nu39805 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap13535 decided December 6, 2012

August 29, 2013

September 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The disposition of imposition by the defendant against the plaintiff on May 11, 201 of the gift tax of 2008 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this Court is as follows. 2. From 1. to 2. 'the process of the disposition in this case', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the party', 'the court', 'the court', 'the part 6. 14 'the party', 'the judgement on the ground of the disposition in this case,

2) Determination as to the assertion on the grounds for the instant disposition

A) Facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff is the representative director of the non-party company since the incorporation of the non-party company up to now, and was the largest shareholder holding 20.11% of the non-party company’s shares at the time of issuance of the instant bonds with warrants. Meanwhile, the shareholders holding 5% or more of the non-party company’s shares at the time are BBBB Co., Ltd. (14.23%) CCC Co., Ltd. (8.99%)

(2) On October 2006, the non-party company requested DD bank to acquire bonds with warrants to raise operating funds for the establishment of a Japanese subsidiary, and DD bank at the time determined that it is highly likely to list in the future and decided to accept the instant bonds with warrants, considering the fact that the non-party company had excellent technical capabilities and human guidance despite being unlisted company even though the non-party company was unlisted company at the time.

(3) The main contents of the contract to underwrite the bonds with the preemptive rights of this case drawn up on October 30, 2006 between the non-party company and DDR bank are as follows.

Bonds with Warrants

Article 1 Conditions of Issuance

1. Name of bonds: Non-party company's first privately placed bonds with warrants;

2. The types of bonds: Registered or non-registered bonds with warrants;

3. Total amount of the bonds: OO; and

4. Types and ditches: Par value 20 sheets; and

5. Issuance price of the bonds: 100.0% of the face value of the bonds; and

6. Interest rate of the debentures: The face value rate of the debentures shall be 6.00% per annum.

7. Issuance date of bonds: October 30, 2006; and

8. The maturity date of bonds: October 30, 2008

Article II Conditions of Repayment

④ The non-party company may, for all or part of the instant bonds with warrants, pay the face value and interest during the period and the fee for repayment before the due date for all or part of the instant bonds with warrants from the date following the date on which three months elapsed from the date following the issuance date of the instant bonds with warrants, and repurchase them before the due date for redemption: Provided, That the preemptive right shall be extinguished at the time of exercising six months before the date of issuance

Article 3 Matters relating to preemptive rights to new bonds

1. A holder of warrant certificates following the issuance of this bond has the right to subscribe to registered common shares of the non-party company.

(2) Conditions for exercise: The number of stocks to be issued following the exercise of preemptive rights shall be calculated by dividing the face value of warrant certificates as of the date of exercise of preemptive rights by the exercising price, and the number of stocks to be issued as of the exercise price and the exercise

Total par value

Exercise Price

Total number of shares

OOOE

OOOE

OOOE

(5) The period during which preemptive rights to new stocks may be exercised shall be from one year to one day before the maturity date of bonds.

(11) warrant certificates: The warrant certificates of this bonds shall be separately issued in real form stating the matters under Article 516-5 (2) of the Commercial Act.

3. Prohibition of the division of warrant certificates: The division of warrant certificates shall not be recognized for one year from the date of issuance.

(4) On December 19, 2006, when two months have elapsed since the date of the issuance of the instant bonds with warrants, the non-party company requested DDR to sell the instant warrant certificates to the Plaintiff. DDR bank rejected the above non-party company’s request and determined that it was possible for the non-party company to exercise the call options under Article 2(4) of the instant bonds with warrants, and that it was more favorable to accept the request for sale of the instant bonds with warrants and to secure interest income and proceeds from the sale of the instant bonds with warrants than loss of the capital gains that may arise from the instant bonds with warrants, and sold all of the instant warrant certificates to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2006.

(5) Meanwhile, since around May 2004, the non-party company has been promoting the listing of the KOSDAQ market, it was newly listed on the KOSDAQ market on July 1, 2008, and due to this, the Plaintiff’s equity ratio on the non-party company has fallen to 18.1%, but on September 24, 2008, the Plaintiff exercised the instant preemptive right, thereby temporarily repaying the instant bonds with warrants on October 30, 2008.

(6) At the time of the exercise of the instant preemptive right, the appraised value per share of the shares of the non-party company was the OOO, and the plaintiff acquired the shares of the non-party company to the OOO per share by acquiring the shares of the non-party company to the OOO, and obtained the profits from the OOO won per share.

[Based on recognition] The evidence Nos. 1, and 2, 3, and 7, the fact inquiry results for the DNA bank in the court of the first instance, and the court's fact inquiry results for the DNA bank in the court of the first instance, and the whole purport of the pleading.

B) Whether Article 40(1)2(b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act can be applied directly

First, the defendant, since the DNA bank constitutes "an underwriter under the former Securities and Exchange Act", the disposition of this case, which is applied directly under Article 40 (1) 2 (b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is legitimate, and thus, it is so examined.

Article 40 (1) 2 (b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "the largest shareholder of the corporation who has issued bonds with warrants (referring to bonds with warrants, if they are separated) has acquired them in excess of the number that can be allocated under equal conditions in proportion to the number of stocks held by the corporation concerned, and the profits acquired by exceeding the value of the stock to be issued by the corporation shall be the value of assets donated to the person who has acquired the profits therefrom," and Article 2 (1) 1 (b) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "the former Securities and Exchange Act shall include cases of acquisition or acquisition by an underwriter under the Securities and Exchange Act". In addition, Article 2 (6) and (7) of the former Securities and Exchange Act provides that "the person who has issued bonds with warrants (referring to the bonds with warrants, if they are separated)" means the person who has acquired the bonds with warrants from the issuer of the securities for the purpose of issuing them, and Article 2 (4) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Securities and Exchange Act provides that "any person who has already purchased or sold them outside the KOSDAQ."

In other words, the following circumstances, which are generally accepted by considering the facts acknowledged above, Gap evidence No. 1 and the whole purport of the pleadings, and ① the maturity of the bonds with warrants is three years, and Article 3 (5) of the contract of acquiring the bonds with warrants of this case provides that the period from one year after the date of issuance of the bonds to the date immediately preceding the due date of the bonds although the maturity of the bonds with warrants of this case is two years, whichever is less than the maturity of the bonds with warrants of this case, and this shorter period for exercising the warrant rights of this case is a condition unfavorable to selling the bonds of this case outside the country, and ② even if 50 or more of the above 50 persons request to acquire the bonds, the number of the bonds with warrants of this case is more than 20 years, and it is difficult to view that the bonds with warrants of this case constitutes D and 50 or more of the former Securities and Exchange Act's subscription to purchase the bonds with warrants of this case to constitute a sale under the Securities and Exchange Act.

Therefore, Article 40(1)2(b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be a direct basis for the instant disposition.

C) Whether Article 2(4) and Article 40(1)2(b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act are applicable

(1) The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case, which applied Article 2 (4) and Article 40 (1) 2 (b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, is legitimate, in order to avoid gift tax to be borne by the plaintiff directly by the non-party company in order to avoid gift tax to be borne by the non-party company under Article 40 (1) 2 (b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act when the non-party company acquired the warrant certificates of this case.

" (2) 구 상속세및증여세법 제2조 제4항은 '제3자를 통한 간접적인 방법이나 2 이상의 행위 또는 거래를 거치는 방법에 의하여 상속세 또는 증여세를 부당하게 감소시킨 것으로 인정되는 경우에는 그 경제적인 실질에 따라 당사자가 직접 거래한 것으로 보거나 연속된 하나의 행위 또는 거래로 본다'고 규정하고 있으므로，원고가 위와 같이 2 이상 의 거래를 거치는 방법에 의하여 증여세를 부당하게 감소시킨 것인지 여부에 관하여 본다. 살피건대，앞서 인정한 사실관계 및 을 제1，3，7호증의 각 기재， 이 법원의 DDDD은행에 대한 2013.8.16 자 사실조회결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 인정 되는 다음과 같은 사정， 즉 ① 소외 회사는 2004. 5 경 EEEE 주식회사와 코스닥시장 상장을 위한 주간사계약을 체결하였고， 2005.12.12 상장을 위한 지정감사를 신청 하는 등 코스닥시장 상장을 준비하여 온 점，② 소외 회사가 먼저 DDDD은행에 대하여 신주인수권부사채의 인수를 요청하였으며，DDDD은행은 당시 소외 회사가 비상장회사였음에도 불구하고 소외 회사의 성장성 및 향후 상장 가능성이 높다고 평가하여 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 인수한 점，③신주인수권부사채는 인수기관이 향후 신주인수권의 행사를 통하여 자본이득을 향유할 수 있으므로 일반사채보다 금리가 낮은 것이 일반적이나， 소외 회사의 감사보고서(을 제1호증)에는 이 사건 신주인수권부사채의 발행가액이 동일한 조건의 일반사채 발행가액과 통일하여 신주인수권대가(신주인수권의 가치)가 없다고 기재되어 있을 뿐만 아니라， 소외 회사는 당시 이미 DDDD은행으로부터 연 3.25%의 이자율로 OOOO원을 차입하고 있었고， 원고가 이 사건 신주 인수권증권을 취득한지 불과 5일이 경과한 후인 2006.12.27 DDDD은행으로부터산업시설자금대출' 명목으로 연 5.63%의 낮은 이자율에 OOOO원을 추가로 대출하였는바，소외 회사는 처음부터 사채권자에게 신주인수권을 부여하는 대신 저렴한 비용으로 자금을 차입하고자 하는 목적으로 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 발행한 것이 아니었던 것으로 보이는 점，④ 소외 회사는 이 사건 신주인수권부사채 발행일인 2006.10.30 로부터 불과 2개월가량이 경과한 시점인 2006.12.19 DDDD은행에 대하여 '최근 컨설팅을 받은 결과，외부 자본 도입이나 상장시 공모증자 등에 따라 현 경영진의 지분 비율이 감소될 것에 대비하여， 사전 대책을 마련하도록 권고 받은 바 있다'는 이유로 이 사건 신주인수권증권을 원고에게 매각할 것을 요청하였는바，소외 회사가 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 발행한 후 2개월 사이에 새로운 컨설팅을 받았다기보다는 오히려 위와 같은 컨설팅 결과에 따라 원고의 지분율 감소에 대비하기 위한 사전 대책으로서 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 발행한 것이라고 볼 여지가 있는 점，⑤ 이 사건 신주인수권은 사채발행일로부터 1년이 경과한 후에야 행사할 수 있는 반면 소외 회사가 이 사건 신주인수권부사채의 발행일로부터 6개월 이내에 콜옵션을 행사하여 기한 전 상환을 할 경우 선주인수권도 같이 소멸되도록 약정하였기 때문에， DDDD은행은 소외 회사의 상장가능성을 토대로 향후 자본이득을 향유할 수 있을 것이라고 예상하여 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 인수하였음에도 불구하고， 위와 같은 소외 회사의 매각요청을 거부할 수 없었는데(만약 DDDD은행이 이를 거부할 경우 향후 이 사건 신주인수권증권의 소지인이 이 사건 신주인수권을 행사함으로써 원고의 지분율이 하락하는 것을 방지하기 위하여 소외 회사가 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 기한 전 상환할 가능성 이 있었고，이 경우 이 사건 신주인수권은 소멸되어 버리므로， 소외 회사의 매각요청에 응하는 것이 DDDD은행에 더 유리하였기 때문이다)，이러한 계약조건을 제시한 것은 소외 회사였던 점，⑥ 소외 회사의 상장을 위한 예비사업설명서 등에는'이 사건 신주 인수권부사채는 만기 일시 상환될 예정에 있으며， 자기자본을 이용한 금융부채 상환을 통하여 안정적인 재무구조와 수익성 개선에 기여할 것이라고 기재되어 있는바，소외 회사는 코스닥시장 상장시 공모주 청약 대금으로 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 상환할 계획이었던 것으로 보이는 점，⑦ 실제로 2008.7.1. 소외 회사의 코스닥시장 상장이 이루어진 이후 이 사건 신주인수권부사채가 만기 일시 상환(2008.10.30.)된 점，⑧ 소 외 회사에 대하여 20.11%의 지분율을 가지고 있던 원고는 2008.9.24. 이 사건 신주인수권을 행사하여 50만주를 취득함으로써 소외 회사의 코스닥시장 상장에도 불구하고 그 지분율을 26.37%로 유지하는 동시에 막대한 시세차익을 얻을 수 있었던 점 등을 종합하면， 원고는 코스닥시장 상장에 따른 지분율 하락에 대비하기 위하여 소외 회사로 하여금 이 사건 신주인수권부사채를 발행하게 한 후 이 사건 신주인수권증권을 취득함에 있어서，소외 회사로부터 이를 직접 취득하는 대신 DDDD은행을 통하여 취득함으로써 증여세를 부당하게 감소시킨 것으로 인정된다.", (3) 따라서 구 상속세및증여세법 제2조 제4항을 적용하여 그 경제적인 실질에 따라 원고가 소외 회사로부터 이 사건 신주인수권증권을 직접 취득한 것으로 볼 수 있다 할 것 이고，구 상속세및증여세법 제2조 제4항，구 상속세및증여세법 제40조 제1항 제2호 나목에 근거하여 이루어진 이 사건 처분은 적법하다.

D) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant disposition is legitimate without any need to further examine the Defendant’s remaining arguments on the grounds of the instant disposition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded, and the plaintiff's appeal shall not be accepted as it is without merit.