Seoul High Court 2011Nu25786 (2012.05)

Since the ownership of the foreign convertible bonds purchase fund is recognized as the plaintiff, the shares disposal profit after the conversion of shares shall be deemed to be reverted to the plaintiff.

(1) It is difficult to readily conclude that the subject of the transaction of overseas convertible bonds or the holder of the interest in disposal of stocks belongs to the Plaintiff, and since the ownership of the purchase fund of overseas convertible bonds is recognized by the Plaintiff through the complaint in the litigation procedure, it is reasonable to deem that the benefit in disposal of stocks after conversion of stocks is ultimately reverted to the Plaintiff.

Article 106 of the Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act

Article 26-2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

2012Du22126 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing global income tax, etc.

KimA

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2011Nu25786 Decided September 5, 2012

January 29, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. After citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision. After the judgment revoking the previous disposition of this case became final and conclusive, the defendant issued the previous disposition of this case on May 1, 2009, it was clear that the previous disposition of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff was not an officer or employee of BB, and since the above judgment did not constitute an officer or employee of BB, the tax authority made a disposition of this case against the plaintiff by applying Article 106 (1) 1 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1703 of Dec. 31, 2001; hereinafter referred to as the "former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act") as other income, the court below determined that the previous disposition of this case was unlawful since the plaintiff could not be treated as an employee or employee as a bonus, unlike the previous disposition of this case, since it constituted a disposition of this case under Article 106 (1) 1-2 (d) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act.

Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the exclusion period under Article 26-2 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes or by violating the precedents.

2. Other allegations in the grounds of appeal are new arguments that are only made in the final appeal, and they cannot be legitimate grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.