early 2011west 2390 ( October 26, 2011)

It can not be deemed unconstitutional to allow the calculation of the donation benefits on the basis of the payment date of stock price.

Considering the fact that when the expiration date of the period of protection is deemed the record date, the value of donated property can be changed according to the intention of the parties, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the calculation of the donated profit based on the payment date of stock price violates the tax equality or the substance over form principle.

2012Guhap2870 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

Section AA

Head of the District Tax Office

November 30, 2012

December 21, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on May 1, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 26, 2007, 2007, DDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EEE”), which is a KOSDAQ-registered corporation, changed its trade name into “FF of the Company” and “DD”, and hereinafter referred to as “non-party company,” were held by the board of directors on December 26, 2007, and “the number of shares issued, “00,000 per share issued, and 10 per share (the base price, 00, and 10%), and the share price payment date on October 26, 2007, and on October 26, 2007, the Financial Supervisory Service announced a resolution to provide capital increase, each of which was issued on October 26, 2007, and each of which was issued by a third party on the electronic disclosure system website.”

B. On December 26, 2007, the Plaintiff participated in the subscription for new shares, paid 000 won per share, and acquired 000 shares of new shares (hereinafter “new shares”).

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into changes in the shares of the non-party company, and deemed that Article 39(1)1(c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007) and Article 29(3)1(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21292 of Feb. 4, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), calculated the market price of new shares due to capital increase with consideration pursuant to Article 29(3)1(a) of the same Enforcement Decree, and notified the defendant of the taxation data.

D. On August 2, 2010, the Defendant: (a) imposed and notified KRW 00 (including additional tax) on the ground that the Plaintiff was given a donation of KRW 000 from the existing shareholders; (b) ex officio cancellation on September 20, 2010; (c) imposed and notified KRW 000 (including additional tax, and additional tax, and the total amount of tax has increased by 00 won) on December 1, 2010; and (d) on the ground that each shareholder who was given a donation of KRW 00 on February 28, 201, did not separately calculate the new shares on the ground that the Plaintiff was given a donation of KRW 00 (including additional tax); and (b) on May 1, 2011, each shareholder received KRW 00 from GGG and KRW 00 from tinH and KRW 00 from each minority shareholder; and (c) imposed additional tax on KRW 00 and KRW 000 (000) on the gift tax of KRW 0000.0 (0.0).0).0).

E. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition and filed a request for adjudication on June 22, 201, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision on October 26, 201 that the amount of tax shall not be applied as the date of initial imposition and notification, from August 2, 2010 to April 20, 201, and that the remainder of the request for adjudication is dismissed.

F. Accordingly, on November 5, 201, the Defendant reduced the additional tax for unfaithful payment, and on May 1, 201, on the Plaintiff on May 1, 201, the amount of KRW 000 (including additional tax, KRW 000,000, + KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) reduced the amount of gift tax (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

G. On the other hand, the principal and additional taxes of the instant disposition are as follows.

(Omission of Additional Tax)

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Article 29(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, which provides that a new purchaser is unable to dispose of the shares allocated during the period of protection, and in particular, where a loss was incurred by capital reduction without compensation during the period of protection, is unconstitutional as it violates the principle of tax equality and the substance over form principle, and thus, the instant disposition based thereon is unlawful.

(2) In light of the fact that the instant new shares had been protected for one year, so it was impossible to sell the new shares immediately after the acquisition, and that there was losses to the principal due to capital reduction twice during the period of safeguard, and that the net asset value and net profit and loss value of the Nonparty Company before and after the issuance of new shares, and that the share price of the Nonparty Company was over zero won due to the purchase of new shares before and after the issuance of new shares, and the price manipulation after the issuance of new shares, there was no economic benefits accrued by the Plaintiff from the acquisition of the instant new shares, and the instant disposition was unlawful in violation of the principle of tax equality and the substance over form principle.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On December 26, 2007, for the purpose of securing operating funds for the improvement of financial structure, the non-party company decided to issue 00 shares to the following persons at the price of KRW 00 per share (00 per share value of 00 per share) which is less than the average closing price for one month retroactive from the day immediately preceding the date of resolution of the board of directors, average closing price for one week, and the price calculated by averaging the closing price for the last day (00 won) at a price lower than the average of the closing price for the last day (00 won) under the third party allocation method.

(2) The non-party company conducted two free capital reductions after capital increase, and the losses suffered by the plaintiff are as follows.

(Omission of Loss Details)

(3) According to the audit report by the external auditor (accounting II) of February 7, 2008 for the fiscal year 2007 of the non-party company, the non-party company continued to operate the existing business division, and the non-party company established the allowance for bad debts for the estimated sales of the company's funds by the former management that occurred over the recent several years due to the decline in sales and the creation of the allowance for bad debts for the estimated amount of the company's funds embezzlement. On December 31, 2007, the accumulated losses amount was KRW 00, and the debt ratio was 592.3%, and the capital erosion rate was 88.5%. The major financial status of the non-party company in the fiscal year 2006

(Omission of Financial Status)

(4) The details of changes in the share price of the non-party company before and after capital increase are as follows.

(Omission of Change)

(5) 소외 회사의 경영진들인 강JJ， 최KK은 2007. 11. 9. 부산지방법원 동부지원 { 00000(병합)}에 2007. 6. 하LL 정MM， 손NN， 이PP에게 소외회사 의 주가조작 작전팀이 두 달 안에 주가를 5배 이상 올리는 작전을 할 것이니 주식을 매입하라는 말을 하여 그들로 하여금 2007. 7. 16.부터 같은 해 8. 2.까지 소외 회사의 주식 총 62，513주를 매입하도록 함으로써 유가증권 시세가 타인의 시장조작에 의하여 변동한다는 말을 유포하였다"는 증권거래법위반죄 등으로 기소되었는데， 2008. 3. 28. 강JJ은 징역 5년， 최KK은 정역 10월에 집행유예 2년을 선고받았다. 강JJ은 2008. 4. 2. 부산고등법원(2008노240)에 항소하였는데， 2008. 10. 8. 항소기각 판결을 선고받았고， 2008. 10. 4. OOO(000)에 상고하였는데 ， 2009. 2. 12. 상고기각 판결을 선고받았다. 또한 소외 회사의 실질적 경영자였던 박MM은 2012. 2. 17. 서울중앙지방법원에 2008. 1. 2.경 이NN， 김QQ， RRR 등에게 소외 회사의 주식이 몇 배 오를 것이니 주식을 매입하라는 말을 하여 그들로 하여금 시가 000원 상당의 주식을 매입하도록 함으로써 유가증권 시세가 자기 또는 타인의 시장조작에 의하여 변동한다는 말을 유포하였다"는 증권거래법위반죄 등으로 기소되었다.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 11 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 1 to 7 (including household numbers), the witness evidence and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

(A) Article 39(1)1 (c) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where a corporation issues new stocks to increase its capital at a price lower than the market price, those who are not stockholders of the corporation concerned shall be deemed to have received donations from the corporation to obtain the new stocks, and paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that the method of calculating profits and other necessary matters under the provisions of paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Accordingly, Article 29(3)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that the profits a person who takes over the new stocks shall be prescribed by the Presidential Decree. Article 39(1)1 (c) of the same Act provides that "(the value per share before the increase x total number of new stocks before the increase x the number of issued stocks)" or (the value of new stocks calculated by the formula of "the average value of new stocks issued before and after the increase x the number of days before the increase x the number of days before and after the increase x the number of transferred stocks shall be calculated based on the number of forfeited stocks or new stocks transferred at the market price.

(B) The gift tax on capital increase in the method of public health, (i) it is realized at the time of the issuance of new shares because it is capital gains generated by issuing new shares at a low price and allocating them directly to a third party; and (ii) it conforms to the substance over form principle to calculate the gift profits on the basis of the payment date of the new shares at the time of acquiring them. However, as the shares of an Association-registered corporation have a high risk of price fluctuation due to the situation of the trading date, and there is a possibility that the price on the day of the specific trading date, which has been traded, is considered to be the market price, it is difficult to exclude the arbitraryness and to secure objectivity. The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is the average price of the standard price of the Association of Securities Business Association every day before and after the trading date, and if there are causes such as capital increase or merger during the above period, it is difficult to exclude the influence, and the Enforcement Decree of the Act guarantees objectivity, and if there is a minority purpose to protect the shareholders, and if there is no reason to consider the change in the above taxation principle 2.

(2) As to the second argument

① 보호예수기간에 관하여; ㉮ 상속세및증여세법 시행령 제29조 제4항은 증여이익 산정 의 기준일을 주금납입일로 명시하고 있고， 달리 예외 규정을 두지 않은 점，㉯ 보호예수는 취득 후 처분제한의 문제이므로， 보호예수 여부가 신주를 취득함으로써 발생하는 증여이익 산정에 영향을 미친다고 볼 수 없는 점，㉰ 보호예수 조건으로 유상증자에 참여한 제3자는 보호예수에 따른 처분제한 등의 위험을 용인하고 신주를 취득한 점，

② 경제적 이익에 관하여; ㉮ 주식의 교환가치란 회사의 자산과 손익을 기준으로 한 실질가치뿐 아니라 회사의 앞으로의 전망， 수익성， 주식의 거래가능성 등 다양한 요소 들에 의하여 결정되는 것이고， 그것이 주가에 반영되어 시가로 나타나므로， 주가가 순자산가치와 순손익가치와 다소 차이가 난다 하더라도 주가가 시가를 대변하지 않는다고 볼 수 없는 점，㉯ 협회등록법인의 주식은 특별한 사정이 없는 한 상속세및증여세법 제60조 제1항 후문에 의하여 제63조 제1항 제1호 나목의 보충적 평가방법에 따라 산정된 평 가기준일 이전・이후 각 2월간에 공표된 매일의 증권업협회 기준가격의 평균액만이 시 가로 간주된다고 봄이 상당한 점(대법원 2011. 1. 13. 선고 2008두9140 판결，대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010두4421 판결 등 참조)，㉰ 보호예수기간 중 무상감자 등의 사유가 발생하여 주가가 급락하여 경제적 이익을 얻지 못하였다 하더라도， 유상증자 당시를 기준으로 보면 원고가 시가보다 저가로 이 사건 신주를 취득한 것이 분명하므로， 경제적 이익이 없다고 할 수 없는 점，

③ 주가조작행위에 관하여; ㉮ 상속세및증여세법은 협회 등록법인의 주가가 주가조작행위 등에 영향을 받을 가능성을 고려하여 평가기준일 전 ・ 후 각 2개월 사이에 공표된 매일의 증권업협회 기준가격의 평균액으로 하도록 규정한 것이므로(대법원 2011. 1. 13. 선고 2008두9140 판결 참조)， 주가조작행위는 원칙 적으로 증여이익을 산정함에 있어 고려할 요소가 아닌 점，㉯ 소외 회사의 경영진들은 2007. 7.경부터 8.경까지 주가조작행위(당시 주가가 000원을 상회)를， 실질적 경영자 였던 박MM도 2008. 1.경부터 2.경까지 주가조작행위(당시 주가가 1，000원을 상회)를 각 하였으나， 주가조작행위로만 주가가 상승하였다고 단정할 수 없는데다가(소외 회사 의 경영진들은 주가조작 유인행위만을 하였을 뿐이고， 2008. 4.경 이후 주가가 급락한 것은 회계감사 등에 의하여 횡령사실이 밝혀졌기 때문인 것으로 보인다)， 유상증자 무렵인 2007. 12.경 주가가 000원 미만이었으므로， 유상증자 당시 주가가 주가조작행위 로 부풀려졌다고 단정할 수 없는 점，㉰ 주가가 주가조작행위로 일부 부풀려져 있다고 하더라도， 이 사건 신주는 상장주식으로서 그 가격으로 불특정다수인과 거래가 가능하므로， 당시의 객관적인 교환가격으로 볼 수 있는 점(보호예수 조건이 없었다면， 원고는 이 사건 신주를 당시 부풀려진 주가를 기준으로 매도할 수 있었다) 등을 고려할 때， 보호예수기간이나 주가조작행위 등을 감안하지 않고，주금납입일을 기준으로 증여이익을 산정한 것은 정당하므로， 이 사건 처분은 조세평등주의나 실질과세원칙에 위반되어 위법하다고 볼 수 없다 할 것이니， 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

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