Plaintiff 1 and four others (Law Firm Seon, Attorneys Kang Jin-sil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of the District Tax Office and one other

October 25, 2011

1. The head of the regional tax office’s disposition of imposition of each transfer income tax listed in Table 2(2) of Table 1 attached hereto with respect to the Plaintiff 1, 2, and 3, and each disposition of imposition of each transfer income tax listed in Table 2(2) of Table 1 attached hereto with respect to the Plaintiff 4 and 5 by the head of the regional tax office shall be revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Neow Business Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant corporation”) is a small and medium enterprise, and it was a company for more than three years from 2004 to 3 years (from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007) under a grace period under Article 2(3) of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises.

B. The Plaintiffs were the shareholders of the instant corporation, and they transferred each of the shares listed in Table 1(2) of Table 1 attached hereto on the date listed in Table 1(1)1 attached hereto among the shares of the instant corporation, and reported and paid the transfer income tax for the year 2007 by applying the tax rate under Article 104(1)4(b) of the Income Tax Act (10%) by deeming the instant corporation as a small and medium enterprise.

다. 그러나 피고들은 별지 제1목록 표2 제①항 기재 각 일자 원고들에 대하여, “이 사건 법인이 2007. 12. 31.까지 중소기업 유예기간 중에 있었으나 2006. 12. 27.자로 다른 중소기업인 주식회사 띵소프트(이하 ‘띵소프트’라 한다)를 흡수합병함으로써 그때부터 중소기업에 해당하지 아니하게 되었다”는 이유로, 소득세법 제104조 제1항 제4호 다목 의 세율(20%)을 적용하여 별지 제2목록 표2 제②항 기재 각 금액의 양도소득세를 경정·고지(이하 ‘이 사건 처분’이라 한다)하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 4, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Article 2(3) proviso of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter the same) and Article 9 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21195, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same) apply to cases where a company in the period to be deemed as a small and medium enterprise as the principal agent is merged with a company deemed as a small and medium enterprise under the principle of no taxation without law. Accordingly, the disposition of this case imposing capital gains tax by applying the tax rate under Article 104(1)4 (c) of the Income Tax Act (20%) on the premise that the deferment of taxation on the corporation of this case is invalidated is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 is as indicated in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) As of January 1, 2004, the instant corporation had been under the grace period until December 31, 2007, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2(3) of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises, the employees’ standard (less than 300 persons) and sales standard (hereinafter “30 billion won”) exceeded the small and medium enterprise standard.

(2) 이 사건 법인은 2006. 12. 27.자로 띵소프트를 흡수합병하였고, 원고들은 그 후 별지 제1목록 표1 기재와 같이 이 사건 법인의 주식을 양도하였다.

[Reasons for Recognition] The above evidence and the purport of the whole pleading

D. Determination

Article 167-8 (Scope of Small and Medium Enterprises) of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21195, Dec. 31, 2008) provides that "small and medium enterprises as prescribed by Presidential Decree" shall mean enterprises falling under small and medium enterprises under Article 2 of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises as of the end of the business year immediately preceding the business year to which the date of the transfer of stocks, etc. belongs as of the end of the business year immediately preceding the business year to which the date of the transfer belongs." Article 2 (3) of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises provides that "If a small or medium enterprise ceases to fall under a small or medium enterprise due to expansion of its size, etc., it shall be deemed that it has been for three years from the year following the year when such cause occurs: Provided, That Article 9 subparagraph 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on Small and Medium Enterprises (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21195, Dec. 31, 2008).

이 사건에서 이 사건 법인이 띵소프트를 합병함으로써 중소기업 유예가 실효되는지 여부에 관하여 보건대, 위 각 규정 및 위 법리에 의하면, 중소기업기본법 시행령 제9조 제1호 의 규정에 의하면 중소기업기본법 제2조 제3항 본문의 규정에 의하여 중소기업으로 보는 기업과 중소기업이 합병하는 경우에 중소기업 유예제도에 의한 유예기간을 허용하지 않고 있는데, 위 규정은 중소기업이 주체가 되어 중소기업으로 보는 기간 중에 있는 기업과 합병하는 경우에 합병의 주체인 중소기업에게 유예기간을 허용하지 않는다는 것이지, 반대로 위 규정이 ‘중소기업으로 보는 기간 중에 있는 기업이 중소기업을 합병하는 경우’에 기준에 중소기업으로 보는 기업에게 부여된 유예가 실효되는 근거 규정으로 보기는 어려워 중소기업 유예 중에 있는 기업이 합병의 주체가 되어 중소기업을 합병한 경우는 중소기업 유예가 실효된다는 점에 관하여 아무런 규정이 없고, 단지 합병결과의 규모에만 중점을 두고 조세평등의 원칙을 내세워 중소기업 유예 중에 있는 기업이 합병의 주체가 되어 다른 중소기업을 합병한 경우에까지 중소기업 유예가 실효된다고 확장해석하는 것은 조세법률주의 원칙상 허용되지 않는 점 등을 아울러 고려해 보면, 이 사건 법인이 유예기간 중에 띵소프트를 흡수합병하였다고 하더라도 그때부터 바로 이 사건 법인에 대한 중소기업 유예가 실효된다고 할 수 없다.

[B] Even if a company under the grace period for a small or medium enterprise is merged with a small or medium enterprise as alleged by the Defendants, the invalidation of the grace period shall be calculated from the business year following the business year in which the ground for invalidation occurred (merger December 27, 2006). In the case of the corporation in this case, it is reasonable to view that the grace period is invalidated from January 1, 2007 (2007) for the business year following the business year (2006) in which the ground for invalidation occurred (merger December 27, 2006). Meanwhile, since a small or medium enterprise subject to reduction of capital gains tax refers to a small or medium enterprise as of the end of the business year immediately preceding the business year to which the transfer date belongs (see Article 167-8 of the Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act), it is reasonable to view the corporation in this case as at the end of

E. Sub-committee

Therefore, since the corporation of this case at the time when the plaintiffs transferred the shares of the corporation of this case is deemed a small and medium enterprise under the Income Tax Act, the disposition of this case reported differently is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim of the plaintiffs in this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Ho-ho