[증여세부과처분취소][공1998.1.15.(50),335]
The case recognizing gift tax liability for a person who has no address in Korea;
The case holding that in case where Party A, who had no address in the Republic of Korea, newly built and acquired a domestic building with the construction cost (including value-added tax) and was appropriated for the lease deposit of this building, and Party B, his father, who was the father, transferred his funds to a head of Tong in the name of friendship-gu residing in the Republic of Korea or entered into the Republic of Korea by himself, entered the Republic of Korea with himself, and provided Party A with the remainder excluding the portion appropriated as lease deposit out of the new building fund by exchanging it in the Republic of Korea, Party A was donated with the remainder excluding the portion appropriated as lease deposit from the new construction fund including value-added tax which is a property in the Republic of Korea from Party B
Article 29-2 (1) 2 of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) (see current Article 4 (2))
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Sung-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
The head of the tax office;
Seoul High Court Decision 95Gu21503 delivered on August 28, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 29-2(1) of the former Inheritance Tax Act (amended by Act No. 5193 of Dec. 30, 1996) provides that a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs is liable to pay gift tax pursuant to this Act; under subparagraph 2, a person who acquired any property within the Republic of Korea from another person’s donation and did not have a domicile in the Republic of Korea at the time of donation.
According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the plaintiff, who did not have an address in the Republic of Korea, was newly constructed and acquired the building of this case on March 25, 1992 by taking into account the construction cost (including value-added tax) 1,54,850,000 won on the ground of Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul. Of the new construction fund of this case, KRW 1,150,00,000 out of the new construction fund of this case was appropriated as the lease deposit for the building of this case. Meanwhile, the plaintiff's father, as the father of this case, transferred the new construction fund of this case to the head of Tong Young-dong, who was residing in the Republic of Korea, or exchanged it in the Republic of Korea and used it as new construction fund of this case, and thus, it can be known that the plaintiff donated the remainder money excluding the portion appropriated as lease deposit from the new construction fund of this case, including value-added tax, which is a property located in the Republic of Korea, to the plaintiff.
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles, or no violation of the principle of no taxation without law as alleged in the grounds for appeal.
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.
Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)