Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Multi-stage warrant bonds, justifiable reason, and no gift tax
Supreme Court, Apr. 11, 2019, 2017Du55268 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 증여세경정거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
May gift tax be assessed on a shareholder's gain from detached share subscription rights bought from a savings bank on the day the issuer privately placed bonds with warrants, where the bank was not an underwriter under the former Capital Markets Act, and do the multi-stage transactions and the parties' reasonable commercial grounds permit assessment under Article 2(4) or Article 42(1)(iii) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act?
Holding
No. The savings bank had not assumed the risk of the issuance for a fee and had bought the bonds as an investor seeking interest and resale profit, so it was not an underwriter under Article 9(12) of the former Capital Markets Act and Article 40(1)(ii)(b) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax Act gave no basis for taxing the plaintiff. The result of a chain of transactions alone cannot readily be treated as a gift under Article 2(4), and where unrelated parties had reasonable grounds to believe the transaction reflected objective exchange value, or where trading on those terms is normal for a rational economic actor, Article 42(3) applies so that no gift tax may be assessed under Article 42(1) in the absence of special circumstances.
Points at issue, verbatim
특수관계가 없는 자 사이의 거래를 통해 거래상대방이 신주인수권의 취득과 행사로 인한 이익을 얻는 결과가 발생하였으나 거래당사자가 객관적 교환가치를 적절히 반영하여 거래를 한다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 사유가 있거나 그러한 거래조건으로 거래를 하는 것이 합리적인 경제인의 관점에서 정상적이라고 볼 수 있는 사유가 있었던 경우, 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제42조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘거래의 관행상 정당한 사유’가 있다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where, through a transaction between persons not in a special relationship, the counterparty obtained profits from the acquisition and exercise of stock acquisition rights, but the parties to the transaction had reasonable grounds to believe that the transaction was conducted reflecting objective exchange value appropriately, or there were grounds for regarding a transaction on such terms as normal from the perspective of a reasonable businessperson, whether there may be regarded to be 'justifiable grounds in light of transaction practices' as referred to in Article 42 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
거래당사자가 객관적 교환가치를 적절히 반영하여 거래를 한다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 사유가 있거나 그러한 거래조건으로 거래를 하는 것이 합리적인 경제인의 관점에서 정상적이라고 볼 수 있는 사유가 있었던 경우에는 구 상증세법 제42조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘거래의 관행상 정당한 사유’가 있다고 봄이 타당하므로
Unofficial English translation
Where the parties to the transaction had reasonable grounds to believe that the transaction was conducted reflecting objective exchange value appropriately, or there were grounds for regarding a transaction on such terms as normal from the perspective of a reasonable businessperson, it is reasonable to regard that there are 'justifiable grounds in light of transaction practices' as referred to in Article 42 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and accordingly
Factors
- 납세의무자가 여러 단계의 거래를 거친 후의 결과만으로 위 조항에 따라 증여세 과세대상으로 삼을 수 있는지 여부(소극)
- 거래당사자가 객관적 교환가치를 적절히 반영하여 거래를 한다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 사유가 있거나
- 그러한 거래조건으로 거래를 하는 것이 합리적인 경제인의 관점에서 정상적이라고 볼 수 있는 사유가 있었던 경우
- 제40조 제1항 제2호 (나)목을 과세의 근거로 삼을 수 없고, 제2조 제4항을 적용하여 증여세를 과세할 수 없으며
- 나아가 같은 법 제42조 제1항 제3호에 기해서도 과세할 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
• whether a taxpayer may be made subject to gift tax under the said provision on the basis of the mere result after undergoing multiple stages of transactions (negative)
• the parties to the transaction had reasonable grounds to believe that the transaction was conducted reflecting objective exchange value appropriately, or
• there were grounds for regarding a transaction on such terms as normal from the perspective of a reasonable businessperson
• Article 40, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2, item (b) cannot be taken as the basis for taxation, and gift tax cannot be imposed by applying Article 2 (4), and
• a case affirming the judgment of the court below, which held that taxation cannot be imposed on the basis of Article 42, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the same Act either
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 1. 25. 선고 2015두3270 판결(공2017상, 475)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision January 25, 2017, 2015Du3270 (Gong 2017 Sang, 475)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2017. 1. 25. 선고 2015두3270 판결(공2017상, 475) / [2] 대법원 2013. 8. 23. 선고 2013두5081 판결(공2013하, 1731), 대법원 2014. 6. 12. 선고 2012두20915 판결, 대법원 2015. 2. 12. 선고 2013두24495 판결(공2015상, 486), 대법원 2018. 3. 15. 선고 2017두61089 판결(공2018상, 743)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If a financial institution assumes the issuance risk for a fee but sells the detached rights to the issuer's largest shareholder on the same day, does the same-day resale leave it an underwriter under Article 9(12) of the former Capital Markets Act?
A later decision that treats same-day resale by an institution bearing risk for a fee as inconsistent with underwriting, or that narrows what counts as a business purpose in a liquidity-driven issuance, would call for this entry to be read again. So would an amendment of Article 14(3) of the National Tax Framework Act, the successor to Article 2(4), or of the justifiable-reason provisions now governing these transactions.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If a financial institution assumes the issuance risk for a fee but sells the detached rights to the issuer's largest shareholder on the same day, does the same-day resale leave it an underwriter under Article 9(12) of the former Capital Markets Act?” vs Independent “What additional circumstances would justify gift taxation despite apparently reasonable commercial grounds for transactions between unrelated parties?”
The primary reading asks whether same-day resale defeats underwriter status under the Capital Markets Act, while the independent reading asks what additional circumstances would justify taxation despite reasonable grounds.
특수관계가 없는 자 사이의 거래를 통해 거래상대방이 신주인수권의 취득과 행사로 인한 이익을 얻는 결과가 발생하였으나 거래당사자가 객관적 교환가치를 적절히 반영하여 거래를 한다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 사유가 있거나 그러한 거래조건으로 거래를 하는 것이 합리적인 경제인의 관점에서 정상적이라고 볼 수 있는 사유가 있었던 경우, 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제42조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘거래의 관행상 정당한 사유’가 있다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 12 July 2017 (2016Nu76154), found that Company A issued bonds with detached share subscription rights privately on 14 July 2010 while in a liquidity crisis, that Shinan Savings Bank bought them the same day and sold the rights straight to the plaintiff, and that this chain of acts was not an abnormal step taken to avoid gift tax. It held that Shinan Savings Bank was not an underwriter under Article 9(12) of the former Capital Markets Act, because the subscription contract contained no assumption of risk and no fee was paid, so Article 40(1)(ii)(b) could not ground the assessment, and that the transactions had a business purpose and a justifiable reason in trade usage, so Articles 2(4) and 42(1)(iii) could not be used either.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error of law in the conclusion. It agreed that the savings bank, which bore no risk for a fee and bought the bonds on the same day in order to sell the rights early, was acting as an investor seeking interest and resale profit rather than with the purpose of conferring the rights on the plaintiff. It also accepted that the issuance served the issuer's liquidity need, that the exercise price was objectively set against a weighted average price, and that the plaintiff bore the credit risk over time, so Articles 2(4), 40(1)(ii)(b), 42(1)(iii) and 42(3) had not been misread, dismissing the appeal although some parts of the appellate reasons were inapt.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the subscriber is the issuing corporation's largest shareholder or a specially related person of that person, so that the excess acquisition limb of Article 40(1)(ii)(b) is engaged.
- A transaction between specially related persons, where Article 42(3), which applies only where the parties are not specially related, cannot bar taxation under Article 42(1).
- A chain of transactions with no business purpose, where the multi-stage form may be denied and treated as one act of gift under Article 2(4).
Record verification notes
Set the file against the four points the Court took from the record: whether the institution bore the issuance risk and received a fee for it, whether it sold the rights on the same day to minimise its own risk, whether it acted as an investor seeking interest and resale profit rather than to confer the rights on the shareholder, and whether the exercise price was objectively set against a weighted average market price. Then check whether the parties were specially related, since Article 42(3) applies only between unrelated parties.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 둘 이상의 행위 또는 거래를 거치는 방법으로 증여세를 부당하게 감소시킨 경우 경제적인 실질에 따라 연속된 하나의 행위 또는 거래로 보아 과세하도록 한 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제2조 제4항의 규정 취지 / 납세의무자가 여러 단계의 거래를 거친 후의 결과만으로 위 조항에 따라 증여세 과세대상으로 삼을 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 특수관계가 없는 자 사이의 거래를 통해 거래상대방이 신주인수권의 취득과 행사로 인한 이익을 얻는 결과가 발생하였으나 거래당사자가 객관적 교환가치를 적절히 반영하여 거래를 한다고 믿을 만한 합리적인 사유가 있거나 그러한 거래조건으로 거래를 하는 것이 합리적인 경제인의 관점에서 정상적이라고 볼 수 있는 사유가 있었던 경우, 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제42조 제3항에서 말하는 ‘거래의 관행상 정당한 사유’가 있다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 같은 조 제1항을 근거로 증여세를 과세할 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극) [3] 갑 주식회사가 사모의 형태로 신주인수권부사채를 발행하자, 을 주식회사가 같은 날 갑 회사로부터 신주인수권부사채를 취득하여 위 사채에서 분리된 신주인수권을 갑 회사의 대주주인 병에게 곧바로 매도하였고, 병이 신주인수권의 취득 및 행사로 얻은 이익에 관하여 증여세를 신고·납부하였다가 납부한 증여세의 환급을 구하는 경정청구를 하였으나 과세관청이 이를 거부한 사안에서, 제반 사정에 비추어 구 상속세 및 증여세법 제40조 제1항 제2호 (나)목을 과세의 근거로 삼을 수 없고, 제2조 제4항을 적용하여 증여세를 과세할 수 없으며, 나아가 같은 법 제42조 제1항 제3호에 기해서도 과세할 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purport of the provision of Article 2 (4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, under which, where gift tax is unfairly reduced by means of two or more acts or transactions, they shall be taxed by regarding them as one single continuous act or transaction in accordance with their economic substance / whether a taxpayer may be made subject to gift tax under the said provision on the basis of the mere result after undergoing multiple stages of transactions (negative) [2] Where, through a transaction between persons not in a special relationship, the counterparty obtained profits from the acquisition and exercise of stock acquisition rights, but the parties to the transaction had reasonable grounds to believe that the transaction was conducted reflecting objective exchange value appropriately, or there were grounds for regarding a transaction on such terms as normal from the perspective of a reasonable businessperson, whether there may be regarded to be 'justifiable grounds in light of transaction practices' as referred to in Article 42 (3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (affirmative), and whether gift tax may be imposed on the basis of paragraph (1) of the same Article (in principle, negative) [3] In a case where, when A Co., Ltd. issued bonds with warrants in a private placement form, B Co., Ltd. acquired the bonds with warrants from A Co., Ltd. on the same day and immediately sold to C, the major shareholder of A Co., Ltd., the stock acquisition rights separated from the said bonds, and C, having reported and paid gift tax on the profits obtained from the acquisition and exercise of the stock acquisition rights, filed an application for correction seeking a refund of the gift tax paid, which the tax authority refused, a case affirming the judgment of the court below, which held that, in light of all the circumstances, Article 40, paragraph (1), subparagraph 2, item (b) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be taken as the basis for taxation, that gift tax cannot be imposed by applying Article 2 (4), and further that taxation cannot be imposed on the basis of Article 42, paragraph (1), subparagraph 3 of the same Act either
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11609호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1항(현행 제4조 제1항 참조), 제3항(현행 제2조 제6호 참조), 제4항(현행 국세기본법 제14조 제3항 참조) [2] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11609호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제42조 제1항, 제3항 [3] 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2013. 1. 1. 법률 제11609호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제4항(현행 국세기본법 제14조 제3항 참조), 제40조 제1항 제2호 (나)목, 제42조 제1항 제3호, 제3항, 구 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률(2013. 5. 28. 법률 제11845호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제9조 제12항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger