Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Merger-acquired own shares and the exclusion of their disposal gain
Supreme Court, June 30, 2022, 2018Du54323 (judgment)
Case name: 법인세경정청구거부처분취소
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a surviving company absorbed another company and later sold shares of itself that the absorbed company had held, was the gain on that sale excluded from gross income under Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act rather than merger gains under Article 17(1)(v), and how is the transfer gain calculated when those shares were acquired through a qualified merger?
Holding
It was not excluded from gross income under Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act and was not merger gains under Article 17(1)(v). Those shares are an asset of the absorbed company and an element in computing merger gains, but the surviving company's later disposal is a follow-on transaction distinct from the merger and is not easily a pure capital transaction; such shares hold both transferability and asset character, and gaining on their disposal after taking them as an asset through the merger is not different in essence from gaining on own shares acquired for other reasons. Where the shares were acquired through a qualified merger, the transfer gain is computed by deducting from the transfer price the shares' market value at the merger registration date and then adding or subtracting the amount then booked to the asset adjustment account.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
협의의 자기주식 처분이익은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 익금에서 제외되는 것으로 정한 대상이나 구 법인세법 제17조 제1항 제5호가 정한 합병차익에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
A case where the court below accepted the view that the gain on the disposal of its own shares in the narrow sense cannot be regarded as either the subject that the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 15 (1) provides shall be excluded from gross income, or the merger gain as provided in the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 17 (1) 5
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Form of the test
Existing test applied Read from the decision
합병 이후 합병법인이 이를 처분하는 행위는 합병과는 구별되는 후속거래로서 순수한 자본거래에 해당한다고 보기 어렵고
Unofficial English translation
the act of the surviving corporation disposing of it after the merger is a subsequent transaction distinct from the merger and it is difficult to regard it as a pure capital transaction, and
Factors
- 피합병법인의 자산으로서 구 법인세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13555호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조 제1항 제5호가 정한 합병차익을 산정하는 요소가 되기는 하지만
- 합병 이후 합병법인이 이를 처분하는 행위는 합병과는 구별되는 후속거래로서 순수한 자본거래에 해당한다고 보기 어렵고
- 협의의 자기주식 역시 양도성과 자산성을 가질 뿐만 아니라
- 합병에 따라 자기주식을 자산으로 취득하였다가 처분하여 이익을 얻는 것이 다른 사유로 자기주식을 취득하였다가 처분하여 이익을 얻는 것과 본질적으로 다르지 아니하므로
Unofficial English translation
• although, as an asset of the merged corporation, it constitutes an element for computing the merger gain as provided in the former Corporate Tax Act (before amendment by Act No. 13555 on December 15, 2015, and hereinafter the same), Article 17 (1) 5,
• the act of the surviving corporation disposing of it after the merger is a subsequent transaction distinct from the merger and it is difficult to regard it as a pure capital transaction, and
• its own shares in the narrow sense likewise possess transferability and the character of an asset, and
• since acquiring its own shares as assets by reason of a merger and disposing of them to realize a profit is not essentially different from acquiring its own shares for other reasons and disposing of them to realize a profit,
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
합병법인이 적격합병으로 취득한 피합병법인이 보유하던 합병법인의 주식을 양도한 경우 그 양도차익은 양도금액에서 해당 주식의 합병등기일 당시의 시가를 차감한 가액에 합병 당시 자산조정계정으로 계상되었던 금액을 가감하는 방식으로 계산된다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the surviving corporation transfers the shares of the surviving corporation that had been held by the merged corporation and were acquired through a qualified merger, the gain on the transfer is calculated by deducting the market value of said shares as of the date of the merger registration from the transfer price, and adding to or subtracting from that amount the amount that had been booked in the asset adjustment account at the time of the merger.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the merger is not a qualified merger and no asset adjustment account is set up, how is the transfer gain on the surviving company's own shares acquired in that merger computed?
An amendment to Article 44 or 44-3 of the former Corporate Tax Act, or to Article 72(2)(iii)(a) or 80-4(1)(ii) of its Enforcement Decree, would require this entry to be read again. A later Supreme Court decision on merger-acquired own shares acquired outside a qualified merger would also reopen the calculation this entry states.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 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 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 2 (holding), axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 2 (Holding): Primary “It was neither excluded from gross income under Article 15(1) of the former Corporate Tax Act nor merger gains under Article 17(1)(v). Those shares are an asset of the absorbed company and an element in computing merger gains, but the surviving company's later disposal is a follow-on transaction distinct from the merger and is not easily a pure capital transaction; such shares hold both transferability and asset character, and gaining on their disposal after taking them as an asset through the merger is not different in essence from gaining on own shares acquired for other reasons. Where the shares were acquired through a qualified merger, the transfer gain is computed by deducting from the transfer price the shares' market value at the merger registration date and then adding or subtracting the amount then booked to the asset adjustment account.” vs Independent “The gain is taxable because the subsequent disposal is distinct from the merger and is neither an excluded capital transaction nor merger surplus. The gain is calculated by subtracting the shares' market value at merger registration from the disposal proceeds and adding or subtracting the amount recorded in the asset adjustment account at the merger.”
Primary reads the gain as falling under the Article 15(1) exclusion and not as merger gain, while independent reads it as taxable because it is neither an excluded capital transaction nor merger surplus.
협의의 자기주식 처분이익은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 익금에서 제외되는 것으로 정한 대상이나 구 법인세법 제17조 제1항 제5호가 정한 합병차익에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Existing test applied” vs Independent “Elements stated”
Primary gives an application-based reasoning while independent states a requirement-type standard, because the court affirmed the lower court's fact-based reasoning.
그 양도차익은 양도금액에서 해당 주식의 합병등기일 당시의 시가를 차감한 가액에 합병 당시 자산조정계정으로 계상되었던 금액을 가감하는 방식으로 계산된다.Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
Primary marks the ruling as stating a new standard, while independent could not confirm a precedent relation, so the difference turns on whether the holding is read as new law.
합병법인이 적격합병으로 취득한 피합병법인이 보유하던 합병법인의 주식을 양도한 경우 그 양도차익은 양도금액에서 해당 주식의 합병등기일 당시의 시가를 차감한 가액에 합병 당시 자산조정계정으로 계상되었던 금액을 가감하는 방식으로 계산된다.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 Busan High Court, in its judgment of 18 July 2018 (2018Nu20764), rejected the plaintiff's contention that the Enforcement Decree provision including own shares acquired in a merger within 'own shares' exceeded the scope of the delegation in the parent Act and offended tax legality, and so was void. It held that the gain on the disposal of the shares in issue cannot be regarded either as an object excluded from gross income by Article 15(1) of the Corporate Tax Act or as merger gains under Article 17(1)(v). It also held that, since the 2012 merger was treated as a qualified merger with no transfer gain or loss reported and the plaintiff took over the shares at Cuckoo Homesys's existing book value, the whole amount by which the transfer price of the shares, including the tax-deferred part, exceeded the inherited book value was to be included in the plaintiff's gross income for the 2014 business year.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On the first ground, it held that the reasons below had not misunderstood the law on the scope and limits of statutory delegation or on tax legality, and that the Supreme Court decisions the plaintiff cited concerned the interpretation of the former Enforcement Decree before the provision was introduced on 4 February 2009 and so were not apt for this case. On the second ground, it held the calculation adopted below was proper and free of any misreading of the law on computing the transfer gain of merger-acquired own shares, and dismissed the appeal with the costs on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A merger that does not meet the conditions of Article 44(2) of the former Corporate Tax Act, so that no qualified merger, and so no asset adjustment account, exists and the computation this decision gives does not apply.
- An amount that does constitute merger gains under Article 17(1)(v) of the former Corporate Tax Act, that is, where the value of property inherited from the dissolved company exceeds the debts, the amounts paid to its shareholders and the increase in the surviving company's capital.
- A reading of the former Enforcement Decree as it stood before 4 February 2009, which the Court set aside as inapt for the provision newly introduced on that date.
Record verification notes
First confirm from the merger registration and the tax return whether the 2012 merger was reported as a qualified merger, since the computation turns on that. Then trace the asset adjustment account set up at the merger, the market value of the shares at the merger registration date, the effect of the 24 March 2014 share split from 165,085 shares to 1,650,850 shares, and the book value the plaintiff inherited, before matching them against the transfer price of the 45,346 shares sold on 6 August 2014. Note also that the decision applies the Corporate Tax Act and its Enforcement Decree before the amendments of 15 December 2015 and 3 February 2017.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사를 흡수합병하였는데 을 회사가 보유하던 갑 회사의 발행 주식의 일부를 양도한 후 위 주식 양도금액을 익금에 산입하고 양도 당시의 그 장부가액을 손금에 산입하여 법인세를 신고하였다가, 이후 갑 회사가 ‘위 주식의 양도는 자본의 증감에 관련된 거래로서 자본거래로 봄이 상당하고 위 주식의 양도차익은 자본거래에 따른 이익으로서 익금산입 대상에서 제외된다.’는 취지로 주장하며 법인세 경정청구를 하였으나 관할 세무서장이 이를 거부한 사안에서, 피합병법인이 보유하던 합병법인 주식의 처분이익은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 익금에서 제외되는 것으로 정한 대상이나 구 법인세법 제17조 제1항 제5호가 정한 합병차익에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례 [2] 합병법인이 구 법인세법 제44조 제2항의 요건을 갖춘 합병으로 취득한 자기주식을 양도한 경우 양도차익을 계산하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
[1] Company A, Inc. merged with Company B, Inc. by absorption, and after the merger Company A, Inc. transferred some of the shares of Company A, Inc. that it held, and filed a corporate tax return by including the transfer price of said shares in gross income and the book value at the time of the transfer in deductible expenses; thereafter, Company A, Inc. asserted that "the transfer of said shares is a transaction related to an increase or decrease in capital and may reasonably be regarded as a capital transaction, and the gain on the transfer of said shares is a profit arising from a capital transaction and is excluded from inclusion in gross income," and filed a claim for correction of the corporate tax, but the head of the competent tax office refused it, in a case where the court below accepted the view that the gain on the disposal of shares of the surviving corporation held by the merged corporation cannot be regarded as either the subject that the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 15 (1) provides shall be excluded from gross income, or the merger gain as provided in the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 17 (1) 5 [2] the method of calculating the gain on transfer where the surviving corporation transfers its own shares acquired through a merger satisfying the requirements of the former Corporate Tax Act, Article 44 (2)
Summary of the holding
[1] 갑 주식회사가 을 주식회사를 흡수합병하였는데 을 회사가 보유하던 갑 회사의 발행 주식의 일부를 양도한 후 위 주식 양도금액을 익금에 산입하고 양도 당시의 그 장부가액을 손금에 산입하여 법인세를 신고하였다가, 이후 갑 회사가 ‘위 주식의 양도는 자본의 증감에 관련된 거래로서 자본거래로 봄이 상당하고 위 주식의 양도차익은 자본거래에 따른 이익으로서 익금산입 대상에서 제외된다.’는 취지로 주장하며 법인세 경정청구를 하였으나 관할 세무서장이 이를 거부한 사안에서, 피합병법인이 보유하던 합병법인의 주식(이하 ‘협의의 자기주식’이라 한다)은 피합병법인의 자산으로서 구 법인세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13555호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제17조 제1항 제5호가 정한 합병차익을 산정하는 요소가 되기는 하지만 합병 이후 합병법인이 이를 처분하는 행위는 합병과는 구별되는 후속거래로서 순수한 자본거래에 해당한다고 보기 어렵고, 협의의 자기주식 역시 양도성과 자산성을 가질 뿐만 아니라 합병에 따라 자기주식을 자산으로 취득하였다가 처분하여 이익을 얻는 것이 다른 사유로 자기주식을 취득하였다가 처분하여 이익을 얻는 것과 본질적으로 다르지 아니하므로, 협의의 자기주식 처분이익은 구 법인세법 제15조 제1항이 익금에서 제외되는 것으로 정한 대상이나 구 법인세법 제17조 제1항 제5호가 정한 합병차익에 해당한다고 볼 수 없다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례. [2] 구 법인세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13555호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제44조는 피합병법인이 합병으로 해산하는 경우 그 법인의 자산을 합병법인에 양도한 것으로 보아 그 양도에 따라 발생하는 양도손익을 피합병법인이 합병등기일이 속하는 사업연도의 소득금액을 계산할 때 익금 또는 손금에 산입하되(제1항), 일정한 요건을 갖춘 합병(이른바 적격합병)의 경우 자산의 양도가액을 피합병법인의 합병등기일 현재의 순자산 장부가액으로 보아 양도손익이 없는 것으로 할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다(제2항). 한편 구 법인세법 제44조의3 제1항은 적격합병의 경우 합병법인이 피합병법인의 자산을 장부가액으로 양도받은 것으로 하도록 규정하고, 구 법인세법 시행령(2017. 2. 3. 대통령령 제27828호로 개정되기 전의 것, 이하 같다) 제72조 제2항 제3호 (가)목은 합병법인이 적격합병에 따라 취득한 자산의 취득가액을 제80조의4 제1항에 따른 장부가액으로 하도록 규정하고 있다. 그리고 구 법인세법 시행령 제80조의4 제1항 제2호는 적격합병의 경우 합병법인은 피합병법인으로부터 양수한 자산 및 부채의 가액을 합병등기일 현재의 시가로 계상하되, 시가에서 피합병법인의 장부가액을 뺀 금액을 자산조정계정으로 계상하며, 이렇게 계상된 자산조정계정 중 감가상각자산 외의 자산에 설정된 것은 해당 자산을 처분하는 사업연도에 전액 익금 또는 손금에 산입하도록 규정하고 있다. 위 각 규정의 내용을 종합하면, 합병법인이 적격합병으로 취득한 피합병법인이 보유하던 합병법인의 주식을 양도한 경우 그 양도차익은 양도금액에서 해당 주식의 합병등기일 당시의 시가를 차감한 가액에 합병 당시 자산조정계정으로 계상되었던 금액을 가감하는 방식으로 계산된다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 법인세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13555호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제15조 제1항, 제17조 제1항 제5호 [2] 구 법인세법(2015. 12. 15. 법률 제13555호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제44조, 제44조의3 제1항, 구 법인세법 시행령(2017. 2. 3. 대통령령 제27828호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제72조 제2항 제3호 (가)목, 제80조의4 제1항 제2호
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