Seoul High Court 2009Nu4830 ( October 17, 2010)

National High Court Decision 2006No1109 ( October 09, 2007)

Borrowing transactions are not likely to be comparable, and thus, it cannot be the comparable transaction of issuing asset-backed securities.

Each loan transaction cannot be the comparable transaction for each bond-backed securities issued because it is not likely to compare with each other, and a special purpose company may distribute dividends in excess of the distributable profits, but may be possible within the scope of income for the business year, and even in case of additional dividends by a resolution of the board of directors, it shall be

2010Du6144 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Corporate Tax

XX Stock Company

Head of the District Tax Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Nu4830 Decided February 17, 2010

September 13, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 4(1) of the former Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Act No. 9266 of Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter "the Adjustment of International Taxes Act") provides that "the tax authorities may determine or rectify the resident's tax base and tax amount on the basis of the arm's length price if the transaction price is less than or in excess of the arm's length price in an international transaction between one of the parties to the transaction, which is a foreign special relationship." Article 5(1)1 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act provides that "the method of assessing the arm's length price as one of the method of computing the arm's length price: In an international transaction between the residents and the specially related parties, the transaction price between the independent parties to the transaction, in a similar transaction, shall be deemed the arm's length price." Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Adjustment of International Taxes Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18628 of Dec. 31, 2004, etc.) provides for a comparison between the following reasonable and special relationship between the parties.

나. (1) 원심은 채용 증거에 의하여, ① 원고가 PP은행으로부터 장부가액 합계 000원 상당의 대출채권 등을 000원에 양수한 다음 이를 기초자산으로 하여 2001. 2. 23. 그 발행가액의 1/7인 000원 상당은 주식형 유동화증권을, 나머지 6/7인 미화 000달러(약 000원) 상당은 만기 7년, 이자율 연 17% 조건의 채권형 유동화증권을 발행하였고, 이를 원고의 국외 특수관계자인 XX XX 원 엘티디(XXXX Ⅰ, Ltd.)가 인수하여 그 중 위 채권형 유동화증권(이하 '이 사건 채권형 유동화증권'이라 한다)을 2001. 4. 20. 원고의 다른 국외 특수관계자인 YY YY 엘티디(YY YY, Ltd., 이하 'YYYY'라 한다)에 매도한 사실, ② YYYY는 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권을 매수하기 위하여 주식회사 QQ은행(이하 'QQ은행'이라 한다)으로부터 2001. 4. 23. 그 최초 발행가액의 70%에 상당하는 미화 000달러를 만기는 2003. 10. 20.로, 이자율은 연 8.5%로 정하여 차입한 사실(이하 '이 사건 차입거래'라 한다), ③ 피고는 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권의 이자율이 정상이자율을 초과하는 것으로 보고, 이 사건 차입거래를 비교대상거래로 선정하여 그 이자율인 연 8.5%를 국제조세조정에관한법률 제5조 제1항 제1호에서 규정한 비교가능 제3자 가격방법에 의한 정상이자율로 산정한 다음, 원고가 YYYY에게 지급한 이자 중 위와 같이 산정된 정상이자율을 초과하는 부분을 손금불산입하는 등으로 원고에게 각 사업연도 법인세를 부과하는 이 사건 각 처분(여기에는 아래 제2항에서 보는 2001. 3. 사업연도 법인세 부과처분 중 이 사건 컨설팅 용역비와 관련된 부분도 포함된다)을 한 사실 등을 인정하였다.

(2) 원심은 위와 같은 사실관계를 토대로 하여, ① 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권 발행거래는 부실대출채권을 기초로 한 것으로서 부실대출채권 외에는 아무런 담보가 없는 고위험거래인 반면, 이 사건 차입거래는 기초 부실대출채권의 회수액이 담보로 제공된 것 외에 YYYY가 차입거래 당사자로서 차입금의 궁극적인 책임을 부담하는 등 그 자체 신용이 제공되었을 뿐만 아니라, 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권의 인수자금 중 YYYY가 직접 출연한 30%의 금액 또한 이 사건 차입거래에 대한 담보장치 역할을 하여 채무불이행 위험이 상당 부분 제거된 비교적 저위험거래로 보이는 점, ② 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권의 담보가치비율과 이 사건 차입거래의 담보가치비율을 비교하여 보면, 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권이 이 사건 차입거래보다 채무불이행에 빠질 가능성이 더 큰 점, ③ 비록 피고가 정상이자율을 적용함에 있어 위와 같은 담보가치비율의 차이를 고려하여 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권의 발행가액 중 YYYY가 QQ은행으로부터 차입한 금액에 해당하는 부분에 대해서만 정상이자율을 초과하는 이자를 손금불산입하였다고 하더라도, 그러한 사정만으로 위와 같은 담보가치비율의 차이를 조정할 필요성이 없게 되었다고 볼 수는 없는 점, ④ 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권의 만기는 7년인 반면, 이 사건 차입거래의 만기는 약 2.5년에 불과한 점 등의 여러 사정을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권 발행거래와 이 사건 차입거래의 비교되는 상황의 차이가 정상이자율의 산정에 중대한 영향을 줄 뿐만 아니라, 이러한 상황의 차이들은 이자율의 산정에 적용되는 중요한 요소들인데 그 본질적인 차이가 너무 커 합리적인 조정이 곤란하거나 거의 불가능해 보이므로, 이 사건 차입거래는 비교가능성이 높다고 할 수 없어 이 사건 채권형 유동화증권 발행거래의 비교대상거래가 될 수 없다는 이유로, 이 사건 각 처분 중 피고가 이 사건 차입거래를 비교대상거래로 선정하여 정상이자율을 산정한 다음 원고가 YYYY에게 지급한 이자 중 위 정상이자율을 초과하는 부분을 손금불산입하여 원고에게 각 사업연도 법인세를 부과한 부분(2001. 3. 사업연도 법인세의 경우에는 아래 제2항에서 보는 이 사건 컨설팅 용역비와 관련된 부분을 제외한 나머지 부분을 말한다)은 위법하다고 판단하였다.

C. Examining the above provisions and relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the selection of comparative transactions and the burden of proof in calculating the arm's length price.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. Article 51-2 (1) 1 of the former Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter the same) provides that "where a special purpose company under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act distributes not less than 90/100 of distributable profits as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the amount shall be deducted from the income amount in the business year concerned," and Article 86-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that "the amount of distributable profits shall be deducted from the income amount in the business year concerned," and Article 86-2 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of Corporate Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17457 of Dec. 31, 2001) provides that "the amount

B. (1) Based on the evidence of employment, the court below found the following facts: ① the Plaintiff included 00 won for the consulting service charges of this case for YO YO LEL (YO, LLC; hereinafter “YO”) in its deductible expenses, and reported the corporate tax base for the business year on March 2001; ② the Plaintiff was found to have been processed with no actual provision of the consulting service charges in the course of its tax investigation by Seoul regional tax office; ② the Plaintiff’s investigation into the YO’s representative director was conducted and confirmed that the YO’s YO’s YO’s YO’s YO included in deductible expenses as other income; on the other hand, the Plaintiff’s disposal of this case’s consulting service charges as 00 won after holding a provisional shareholders’ meeting and approved the annual appropriation of retained earnings reflecting the above YO’s 00 won and the Defendant returned 200 U.S.’s additional dividends to the Defendant on October 18, 2005.

(2) Based on the above factual basis, the lower court determined that the portion of the disposition imposing corporate tax on March 2001, which the Defendant denied the validity of the disposition imposing corporate tax on the following was unlawful, on the ground that, even if the Plaintiff, while not disposing of the consulting service cost of this case as an internal reservation and instead disposing of it as other income (e.g., outflow of income), the Plaintiff was entitled to claim compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment against YO, the employer of SS LO, and did not waive it or confirm the above embezzlement. Furthermore, on May 26, 2006, the amount equivalent to the consulting service cost of this case was recovered from YO, so the increase in the amount of income resulting from the non-deductible of the consulting service cost of this case is legitimate, and that the additional dividend should be deducted from the amount of income for the business year of March 2001 pursuant to Article 51-2(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act.

(3) Examining the above provisions and related legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just and acceptable. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the income deduction of dividends by the special purpose company, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. As to the omission of judgment

The reason of the written judgment is to indicate the judgment on the party's allegations and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is fair, and it is not necessary to judge all the parties' arguments and methods of offence and defense (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The lower court revoked each of the dispositions of this case by citing the Plaintiff’s claim without making a judgment on the instant assertion, on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion of violating the principle of prohibition of double tax audit was unlawful, on the grounds that the need not further examine on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the disposition of this case was unlawful. In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower

4. Conclusion

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.