Open Decision Ledger · Tax & international taxation
Exchange profit in a cash-in-kind contribution and proof of leakage
Supreme Court, Mar. 12, 2026, 2024Du37008 (judgment)
Case name: 종합소득세부과처분취소[현물출자 과정에서 사외유출된 것인지 여부가 쟁점이 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a corporation is deemed under Article 88(1)(i) of the Corporate Tax Act Enforcement Decree to have received a cash-in-kind contribution at a value above market price, and the excess amount is added to its income, how is it decided whether that added amount was ultimately leaked out of the company to the contributor, and can the excess alone establish the leak where the shares allotted in return were valued just as highly?
Holding
Not by the overvaluation alone. Because a cash-in-kind contribution is at once an increase of the company's capital and a paid transfer of an asset, the court must also look at whether any exchange profit exists, that is, the difference between the market price of the contributed property and the market price of the shares taken in return. Where the shares allotted were valued at the same height as the overvalued property, the books merely carry an asset and share capital both overstated, and unless the tax authority proves in addition that the amount added to income was ultimately leaked out, the excess is not treated as an asset that left the company.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
자본거래와 손익거래가 대가관계를 가지면서 병존하는 현물출자의 특성을 고려하여, 출자한 재산이 시가보다 높은 가액으로 평가되었는지 여부만으로 결정할 것이 아니라 출자한 재산의 시가와 피출자법인으로부터 인수한 주식 등 시가의 차액, 즉 교환차익이 존재하는지도 함께 살펴보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Taking into consideration the nature of a contribution in kind, in which a capital transaction and a profit-and-loss transaction coexist in a relationship of consideration, the matter must not be determined solely by whether the property contributed was appraised at a value higher than its fair market value, but whether there is a difference between the fair market value of the property contributed and the fair market value of the shares, etc. acquired from the investee corporation, that is, whether an exchange gain exists, must also be examined together.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
출자한 재산이 시가보다 높은 가액으로 평가되었는지 여부만으로 결정할 것이 아니라 출자한 재산의 시가와 피출자법인으로부터 인수한 주식 등 시가의 차액, 즉 교환차익이 존재하는지도 함께 살펴보아야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The matter must not be determined solely by whether the property contributed was appraised at a value higher than its fair market value, but whether there is a difference between the fair market value of the property contributed and the fair market value of the shares, etc. acquired from the investee corporation, that is, whether an exchange gain exists, must also be examined together.
Factors
- 자본거래와 손익거래가 대가관계를 가지면서 병존하는 현물출자의 특성을 고려하여
- 출자한 재산의 시가와 피출자법인으로부터 인수한 주식 등 시가의 차액, 즉 교환차익이 존재하는지도 함께 살펴보아야 한다.
- 단지 장부상으로 자산과 자본금이 함께 과다계상되어 있는 상태에 불과하다
- 부당행위계산 부인으로 인한 피출자법인의 익금산입액이 종국적으로 사외로 유출되었다는 사정이 과세관청에 의해 추가로 증명되지 않는 한
Unofficial English translation
• Taking into consideration the nature of a contribution in kind, in which a capital transaction and a profit-and-loss transaction coexist in a relationship of consideration,
• Whether there is a difference between the fair market value of the property contributed and the fair market value of the shares, etc. acquired from the investee corporation, that is, whether an exchange gain exists, must also be examined together.
• It is merely a state in which assets and capital are both overstated on the books
• Unless the fact that the amount included in gross income of the investee corporation due to the disallowance of the calculation for unfair acts was ultimately leaked outside the company is additionally proved by the tax authority
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2024. 9. 12. 선고 2024두41069 판결 참조
Unofficial English translation
See Supreme Court Decision 2024Du41069 decided September 12, 2024.
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
The party asserting Stated in the decision
부당행위계산 부인으로 인한 피출자법인의 익금산입액이 종국적으로 사외로 유출되었다는 사정이 과세관청에 의해 추가로 증명되지 않는 한
Unofficial English translation
Unless the fact that the amount included in gross income of the investee corporation due to the disallowance of the calculation for unfair acts was ultimately leaked outside the company is additionally proved by the tax authority
Open question and revisit condition
Once the exchange-profit test is satisfied, what evidence suffices to prove that the amount added to income was ultimately leaked out of the company and attributed to the contributor?
A decision treating the proviso to Article 55(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act Enforcement Decree differently from Supreme Court Decision 2024Du41069 would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 88(1)(i) of the Corporate Tax Act Enforcement Decree or to the income disposition rules in Article 106(1) of the Decree also calls for a fresh reading.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “Follows earlier decisions” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The text develops the analysis from the nature of contributions in kind and proof of outflow without expressly identifying precedent, allowing the primary reading to emphasize doctrinal continuity and the independent reading to leave that relationship unconfirmed.
대법원 2024. 9. 12. 선고 2024두41069 판결 참조Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Once the exchange-profit test is satisfied, what evidence suffices to prove that the amount added to income was ultimately leaked out of the company and attributed to the contributor?” vs Independent “What evidence, apart from an exchange gain, would suffice to establish an actual outflow when the contributed property and issued shares are equally overvalued?”
The primary reading assumes an exchange gain has been established and asks about further proof, while the independent reading asks what evidence other than an exchange gain can establish outflow.
자본거래와 손익거래가 대가관계를 가지면서 병존하는 현물출자의 특성을 고려하여, 출자한 재산이 시가보다 높은 가액으로 평가되었는지 여부만으로 결정할 것이 아니라 출자한 재산의 시가와 피출자법인으로부터 인수한 주식 등 시가의 차액, 즉 교환차익이 존재하는지도 함께 살펴보아야 한다.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 Daejeon High Court, in its judgment of 31 January 2024 (Cheongju) (2023Nu50128), found that the plaintiff contributed two orchard plots of 2,979 and 3,319 square metres in Andeok-myeon, Seogwipo-si to the agricultural corporation at a value of KRW 2.15 billion and received 215,000 units at KRW 10,000 each. It held that the market price of those units was not far from the market price of the land, so their total face value could not be taken to be the real value, since a newly established company with no other assets has yet to earn income and the shares taken in return for real estate stand close to the market price of the net assets contributed. It referred to the net asset value method for unlisted shares under Article 54(4)(ii) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act Enforcement Decree as one of its grounds.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the appellate reasoning was sound and disclosed no error such as a misapprehension of the law on outflow and its attribution under the income disposition rules. It noted that Article 14(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, which states the principle of substantial taxation, also applies when deciding whether the plaintiff obtained income equal to the difference of KRW 950,308,000, so the notice of change in income was lawful only if the face total of the units matched their real worth, which the tax authority's evidence did not establish. It also rejected the tax authority's ground that book value in the proviso to Article 55(1) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act Enforcement Decree means the value in the corporate accounting books, holding that it means a value computed from the acquisition cost, and that the acquisition cost of the land means only the market price of the units given in return, not the overvalued figure itself. The tax authority's appeal was dismissed unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the market price of the shares allotted in return for the contribution is lower than the market price of the contributed property, so that an exchange profit exists.
- A case in which the tax authority proves in addition that the amount added to income was finally leaked out of the company to the contributor.
- A transaction other than a cash-in-kind contribution at the time of a company's establishment or a new share issue, to which the dual character the Court described does not attach.
Record verification notes
Set the market price of the contributed property against the market price of the shares allotted, not against their face value, and identify whether any exchange profit remains. Then check the record for the additional proof the tax authority must produce on final outflow, and confirm which version of Article 88(1)(i) of the Corporate Tax Act Enforcement Decree applied on the date of the contribution.
From the official text
Points at issue
시가보다 높은 가액으로 현물출자 받아 법인세법 시행령 제88조 제1항 제1호에 따른 부당행위계산 부인에 의하여 그 시가초과액을 익금에 산입한 피출자법인의 익금산입액이 현물출자 과정에서 사외로 유출되어 출자자에게 귀속되었는지 판단하는 방법 및 출자자가 출자한 재산 가액이 시가보다 높게 평가되었더라도 그 대가로 피출자법인이 출자자에게 배정한 주식 등의 발행가액도 현물출자 재산의 고평가된 가치만큼 높게 평가된 경우, 시가초과액에 해당하는 피출자법인의 자산이 사외유출된 것으로 볼 수 있는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Method for determining whether the amount included in gross income of the investee corporation, which received a contribution in kind at a value higher than its fair market value and had the amount exceeding the fair market value included in gross income pursuant to the disallowance of the calculation for unfair acts under Article 88 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Corporate Tax Act, flowed out of the company to the outside in the course of the contribution in kind and became attributable to the contributor; and whether, even if the value of the property contributed by the contributor was appraised at a value higher than its fair market value, assets of the investee corporation corresponding to the amount exceeding the fair market value may be regarded as having flowed out of the company to the outside where the issue value of the shares, etc. allocated by the investee corporation to the contributor as the consideration therefor was also appraised at a value higher by the amount of the overvalued portion of the property contributed in kind (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
현물출자는 회사의 설립이나 신주 발행 시에 발기인 또는 신주인수인(이하 ‘출자자’라 한다)이 회사(이하 ‘피출자법인’이라 한다)에 금전 이외의 재산을 출자하는 것으로서, 출자자가 피출자법인에 재산을 이전하는 거래와 그에 대한 대가로 피출자법인으로부터 주식 또는 지분(이하 ‘주식 등’이라 한다)을 배정받아 피출자법인의 주주 또는 사원이 되는 거래가 결합하여 일체로 이루어진다. 따라서 현물출자는 기본적으로 ‘법인의 자본을 증가시키는 거래’의 성격을 가지는 것이지만, 그 자본의 출자가 출자자의 재산이라는 현물에 의하여 이루어지므로 그러한 한도에서 ‘자산을 유상으로 양도하는 손익거래’의 성격도 함께 가진다. 그 결과, 피출자법인이 출자자의 재산을 시가보다 높은 가액으로 양수한 경우에는 재산이 과다계상되어 피출자법인의 조세부담을 부당하게 감소시킬 수 있으므로, 이를 시정하고자 법인세법 시행령 제88조 제1항 제1호에 따른 부당행위계산 부인에 의하여 그 시가초과액을 자산의 취득가액에서 제외하는 한편 피출자법인의 익금에 산입하는 것이다. 다만 그와 같은 피출자법인의 익금산입액이 현물출자 과정에서 사외로 유출되어 출자자에게 귀속되었는지를 판단할 때는, 자본거래와 손익거래가 대가관계를 가지면서 병존하는 현물출자의 특성을 고려하여, 출자한 재산이 시가보다 높은 가액으로 평가되었는지 여부만으로 결정할 것이 아니라 출자한 재산의 시가와 피출자법인으로부터 인수한 주식 등 시가의 차액, 즉 교환차익이 존재하는지도 함께 살펴보아야 한다. 출자자가 출자한 재산의 가액이 시가보다 높게 평가되었더라도 그에 대한 대가로 피출자법인이 발행하여 출자자에게 배정한 주식 등의 발행가액 역시 현물출자 재산의 고평가된 가치만큼 높게 평가된 경우라면 이는 단지 장부상으로 자산과 자본금이 함께 과다계상되어 있는 상태에 불과하다. 이러한 경우에는, 앞서 본 교환차익의 존재 등 부당행위계산 부인으로 인한 피출자법인의 익금산입액이 종국적으로 사외로 유출되었다는 사정이 과세관청에 의해 추가로 증명되지 않는 한, 시가초과액에 해당하는 피출자법인의 자산이 실제로 사외유출된 것으로 볼 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
법인세법 제41조 제1항, 제2항, 제52조 제1항, 제4항, 법인세법 시행령 제72조 제2항 제3호 (나)목, 제4항 제3호, 제88조 제1항 제1호, 제89조 제5항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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