Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Business continued by the merging company after the split company's dissolution
Supreme Court, Oct. 25, 2018, 2018Du42184 (judgment)
Case name: 취득세등부과처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a newly established split company was absorbed and dissolved by the merging company before the end of the business year containing its split registration date, but the merging company again succeeded in the business inherited from the splitting company and carried it on until the end of that business year, is the business-continuation requirement under Article 46(1)(iii) of the former Corporation Tax Act satisfied?
Holding
Yes. The words, structure, legislative purpose and aim of the former Corporation Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree show that the case of the merging company again succeeding in the inherited business is not one of the dispositions the Enforcement Decree treats as a failure to continue the business. Where the merging company carries that business on until the end of the business year containing the split registration date, the continuation requirement of Article 46(1)(iii) of the former Corporation Tax Act is therefore satisfied, even though the split company was dissolved in the meantime.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는 구 법인세법 시행령 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문이 규정하는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a corporation that has merged with a corporation newly established by division again succeeds to the business that the corporation newly established by division succeeded to from the dividing corporation, such a case cannot be regarded as falling within the case, prescribed in the main text of Article 82 paragraph (4) and Article 80 paragraph (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where ‘the corporation newly established by division disposes of business fixed assets succeeded to from the dividing corporation or does not directly use them in the relevant business succeeded to.’
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
이들 규정의 문언내용과 체계, 입법 목적과 취지 등을 종합하면
Unofficial English translation
Taking into consideration the textual content and system of these provisions, as well as the purpose and intent of the legislation,
Factors
- ‘법인세법 제46조 제1항 각호의 요건을 갖춘 인적분할’로 인하여 취득하는 재산의 등기에 대한 등록세 및 그 취득에 대한 취득세를 각 면제하도록 규정하여
- 분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는
- 구 법인세법 시행령 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문이 규정하는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다
- 구 법인세법 제46조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 사업의 계속 요건을 충족하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다
Unofficial English translation
• providing that registration tax on the registration of property acquired by a ‘spin-off division satisfying the requirements of each subparagraph of Article 46 paragraph (1) of the Corporate Tax Act’ and acquisition tax on such acquisition shall each be exempted,
• where a corporation that has merged with a corporation newly established by division again succeeds to the business that the corporation newly established by division succeeded to from the dividing corporation,
• such a case cannot be regarded as falling within the case, prescribed in the main text of Article 82 paragraph (4) and Article 80 paragraph (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where ‘the corporation newly established by division disposes of business fixed assets succeeded to from the dividing corporation or does not directly use them in the relevant business succeeded to’
• it is reasonable to regard the requirement of continuation of business prescribed in subparagraph 3 of Article 46 paragraph (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act as satisfied
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
이들 규정의 문언내용과 체계, 입법 목적과 취지 등을 종합하면, 분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는 구 법인세법 시행령 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문이 규정하는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking into consideration the textual content and system of these provisions, as well as the purpose and intent of the legislation, where a corporation that has merged with a corporation newly established by division again succeeds to the business that the corporation newly established by division succeeded to from the dividing corporation, such a case cannot be regarded as falling within the case, prescribed in the main text of Article 82 paragraph (4) and Article 80 paragraph (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, where ‘the corporation newly established by division disposes of business fixed assets succeeded to from the dividing corporation or does not directly use them in the relevant business succeeded to.’
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the merging company sells part of the inherited business or stops using some of the inherited fixed assets directly before the end of the business year, how does the one-half test in the Enforcement Decree apply to assets now held by the merging company?
The judgment of the Seoul High Court on remand will show how the continuation requirement was applied on the full record of the leases and the rental business. Any case governed by the current Articles 46(2)(iii) and 46-3 of the Corporation Tax Act, Article 80-2(7) and Article 82-2(9) of its Enforcement Decree, or Article 57-2(3)(ii) of the Local Tax Special Cases Restriction Act requires this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 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 6 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary reading treats the holding as a new standard for the merger-succession case, while the independent reading did not determine its precedential status.
이들 규정의 문언내용과 체계, 입법 목적과 취지 등을 종합하면, 분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는 구 법인세법 시행령 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문이 규정하는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the merging company sells part of the inherited business or stops using some of the inherited fixed assets directly before the end of the business year, how does the one-half test in the Enforcement Decree apply to assets now held by the merging company?” vs Independent “How should business continuity be assessed if the surviving company materially changes the inherited business before the end of the division year?”
The primary reading asks how the one-half fixed-asset test applies to assets held by the merged company after a partial disposal, while the independent reading asks how to assess continuation after a material change of the business.
분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는 구 법인세법 시행령 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문이 규정하는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다.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 30 March 2018 (2017Nu79990), held that once Samhwa Asset Co., Ltd. was absorbed and dissolved by the plaintiff before the end of the 2009 business year containing its split registration date, the continuation requirement of Article 46(1)(iii) of the former Corporation Tax Act was not met, even though the plaintiff again succeeded in the business. The real property Samhwa Asset had acquired by the split was therefore outside the registration tax and acquisition tax exemptions, and the tax assessments stood.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had misread the law on the continuation requirement. Article 46(1)(iii) of the former Corporation Tax Act must be read together with the latter part of Article 46(2), which provides that where the merging company again succeeds in the inherited business the business is not treated as discontinued, and with Article 82(4) and the first part of Article 80(3) of the former Enforcement Decree. Since the plaintiff again succeeded in the rental business carried on with the inherited real property and carried it on until the end of the 2009 business year, the split met the continuation requirement. The whole judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the Seoul High Court, the Justices being unanimous.
Distinguishing conditions
- A split in which the merging company did not again succeed in the inherited business, or did not carry it on until the end of the business year containing the split registration date.
- A case in which, before the end of that business year, one half or more in value of the fixed assets used in the inherited business was disposed of, or they were not used directly in that business, which Article 82(4) and the first part of Article 80(3) of the former Enforcement Decree treat as no continuation.
- A division that does not meet the requirements of each item of Article 46(1) of the Corporation Tax Act, so that no exemption arises in the first place.
Record verification notes
Set out the split registration date, the merger date and the end of the business year in which the split date falls, and confirm that the merged company, not only the split company, held the landlord's position under the leases until that end date. Then match the transaction against the version of the Corporation Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree applied here, in force before the amendments of 31 December 2009 and 8 June 2010, since the current provisions sit in Article 46(2)(iii), Article 46-3, Article 80-2(7) and Article 82-2(9).
From the official text
Points at issue
분할신설법인이 분할등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 종료일 전에 합병법인에 흡수합병되어 해산하였더라도, 분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 합병법인이 다시 승계하여 분할등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 종료일까지 계속 영위한 경우, 구 법인세법 제46조 제1항 제3호에서 과세이연의 요건 중 하나로 규정한 사업의 계속 요건을 충족한 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Even where a corporation newly established by division is merged into and absorbed by the merging corporation and dissolved before the end of the business year in which the date of registration of the division falls, if the merging corporation again succeeds to the business that the corporation newly established by division succeeded to from the dividing corporation and continues to operate such business until the end of the business year in which the date of registration of the division falls, whether the requirement of continuation of business, which is prescribed as one of the requirements for tax deferral in subparagraph 3 of Article 46 paragraph (1) of the former Corporate Tax Act, may be regarded as satisfied (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
구 조세특례제한법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9921호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제119조 제1항 제10호 및 제120조 제1항 제9호는 ‘법인세법 제46조 제1항 각호의 요건을 갖춘 인적분할’로 인하여 취득하는 재산의 등기에 대한 등록세 및 그 취득에 대한 취득세를 각 면제하도록 규정하여 법인세 특례와 동일한 기준에 의해 분할 관련 취득세 등 면제 혜택을 부여하고 있다. 회사분할에 대한 과세이연 규정은 1998. 12. 28. 법인세법 전부 개정으로 합병·분할 등 기업조직재편 세제를 도입할 때 마련된 것으로서, 회사가 기존 사업의 일부를 별도의 회사로 분리하는 조직형태의 변화가 있었으나 지분 관계를 비롯하여 기업의 실질적인 이해관계에는 변동이 없는 때에는, 이를 과세의 계기로 삼지 않음으로써 회사분할을 통한 기업구조조정을 지원하기 위한 취지이다. 구 법인세법령은 아래와 같이 이러한 실질적 동일성 기준 중 사업의 계속 요건을 구체화하여 규정하고 있다. 구 법인세법(2009. 12. 31. 법률 제9898호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제46조 제1항 제3호는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 종료일까지 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 계속 영위할 것’을 과세이연 요건의 하나로 규정하고 있고, 같은 조 제2항 후문은 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는 사업의 폐지로 보지 아니한다’고 규정하며, 같은 조 제4항은 위 제1, 2항의 규정을 적용할 때 승계받은 사업의 계속 또는 폐지에 관한 판정기준 등에 관하여 필요한 사항은 대통령령으로 정하도록 하고 있다. 그 위임을 받은 구 법인세법 시행령(2010. 6. 8. 대통령령 제22184호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문은 ‘분할신설법인이 분할등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 종료일 이전에 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산가액의 2분의 1 이상을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우에는 승계받은 사업을 계속 영위하지 않은 것으로 한다’고 규정하고 있다. 이들 규정의 문언내용과 체계, 입법 목적과 취지 등을 종합하면, 분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 분할신설법인과 합병한 법인이 다시 승계하는 경우에는 구 법인세법 시행령 제82조 제4항, 제80조 제3항 전문이 규정하는 ‘분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계한 사업용 고정자산을 처분하거나 승계한 해당 사업에 직접 사용하지 아니하는 경우’에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다. 따라서 분할신설법인이 분할등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 종료일 전에 합병법인에 흡수합병되어 해산하였더라도, 분할신설법인이 분할법인으로부터 승계받은 사업을 합병법인이 다시 승계하여 분할등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 종료일까지 계속 영위한 경우에는 구 법인세법 제46조 제1항 제3호에서 정한 사업의 계속 요건을 충족하였다고 보는 것이 타당하다.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
구 조세특례제한법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9921호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제119조 제1항 제10호(현행 삭제), 제120조 제1항 제9호(현행 지방세특례제한법 제57조의2 제3항 제2호 참조), 구 법인세법(2009. 12. 31. 법률 제9898호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제46조 제1항 제3호(현행 제46조 제2항 제3호 참조), 제2항(현행 제46조의3 제3항 제1호 참조), 제4항(현행 제46조 제3항 참조), 구 법인세법 시행령(2010. 6. 8. 대통령령 제22184호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제80조 제3항(현행 제80조의2 제7항 참조), 제82조 제4항(현행 제82조의2 제9항 참조)
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