The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

[Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu800, 2008.06.20]

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 806,40,00 for the Plaintiff on August 10, 2006, and the disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 144,416,210 for the year 200, in excess of KRW 51,82,960 for the disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 144,416,210 for the year 2001, and the disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 2,096,371,320 for the year 203.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all of the above plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap18697, Nov. 29, 2007]

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. (1) The father's father's father's father's father's father's (OO-O, and 879m2 (hereinafter referred to as "the father's father's father's father") in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

The land of this case was transferred to Kim○, a building business operator, to be 4.2 billion won of land transfer price and 24.4 billion won of loan bonds, and 4.4 billion won of loan bonds from Kim○○. On April 22, 2000, the Plaintiff transferred the bonds of 1.87 billion won out of the above transfer price bonds (hereinafter “the bonds of this case”) to the Plaintiff, and on March 25, 2003, 47 commercial buildings and officetels of 10th and 3th and upper floors from the underground floor of 4.10th and upper floors from the underground floor of 4.10th and officetel of 2.9 billion won (hereinafter “the commercial building of this case”) under the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the transfer registration of ownership”) did not constitute the transfer registration of ownership under the title of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff did not report the transfer registration of ownership under the title of the donation.

(2) Meanwhile, around January 2001, the Plaintiff received a donation of the amount equivalent to KRW 265,082,000 for the value corresponding to the shares of Song○, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City OO-O's shares among the O-O's above-ground buildings.

B. The Defendant: (a) deemed that the instant claim was transferred to the Plaintiff; and (b) that the instant commercial building was registered for transfer of ownership constitutes each gift; and (c) rendered the instant disposition to the Plaintiff on August 10, 2006, on August 10, 2006, on the following grounds: (a) on the donation of the commercial building around January 2001, the Defendant rendered a ruling and notification of the gift tax of KRW 2,995,364,570 ( KRW 806,400,000 for the year 2000, KRW 92,593,250 for the year 200, KRW 2,096,371,320 for the year 203.

C. On October 4, 2006, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and brought an appeal to the National Tax Tribunal on October 4, 2006.

B. On May 9, 2007, the National Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the above request.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑1, 2-각 1˜3, 갑3-1.2, 갑10-1.2, 갑13, 을1-1˜4,

B 2. The purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The transfer of the instant bonds to the Plaintiff and the transfer of the ownership to the instant commercial building in the name of the Plaintiff is a comprehensive delegation of debt collection affairs between the Plaintiff and Song○○.

As such, the Plaintiff should return the collection after the completion of the collection work to Song○○. This is supported by the developments leading up to the establishment of provisional registration for the registration of ownership transfer of this case, the relevant final and conclusive judgment, the adjustment details confirmed in litigation with Kim○, and the trust agreement with regard to the instant commercial building, and thus, the disposition that reported differently should be revoked as unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

(1) Gift property under Article 2 shall include property belonging to the donee, all articles having economic value capable of realizing in money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

(4) Where the donated property (excluding money) is returned by the time limit for report under Article 68 under an agreement between the parties concerned, it shall be deemed that the donation had never been made: Provided, That the same shall not apply to the case where the tax base and amount of tax are determined under Article 76 before such return.

Article 68 (Reporting of Tax Base of Gift Tax)

(1) A person liable to pay the gift tax under Article 4 shall, within three months from the date of donation, report the taxable value and tax base of the gift tax under Articles 47 and 55 (1) to the superintendent of the competent tax office under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18177, Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 23 (Time of Acquisition of Donated Property)

(1) In applying Article 31 (1) of the Act, the time of acquisition of donated property shall be subject to one of the following subparagraphs, except in cases where the provisions of Articles 32 through 42 of the Act are applied:

1. The date of registration or record for the transfer of rights or the transfer of rights: Provided, That for the acquisition of real estate not required to be registered under the provisions, the date of actual acquisition of real estate ownership shall be the date of acquisition;

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) ㈎ 송○○는 1994. 12. 30. 이 사건 토지를 법원 경매를 통하여 34억원에 취득한 후, 1997. 7.경 건축업자인 김●●와 함께 이 사건 토지에 상가 및 오피스텔을 건축하기로 하고 이 사건 토지를 김●●에게 48억원에 양도하기로 하는 계약을 체결하였다.

㈏ 김●●는 1998. 2. 16. 다시 건축업자인 김○○과 이 사건 토지상에 상가 및 오피스텔을 건축하는 공사계약을 체결하였으나, 김●●가 송○○에게 위 매매계약의 계약금으로 4억 8,000만원을 지급한 이후 공사자금 및 시공능력이 없어 공사진행을 포기하고 잠적함으로써 매매대금 중 43억 2,000만원을 변제받을 수 없게 되자, 송○○는 김●●와의 매매계약을 해제하였다.

㈐ 그 후 송○○는 김●●로부터 사전에 상가 및 오피스텔을 분양받은 자들과의 분쟁에 시달리게 되자 이를 해소하고 손해를 최소화시키기 위해 김○○과 협력하여 이미 진행한 건축공사를 완성하기로 합의한 후, 1998. 4. 20. 김○○에게 이 사건 토지를 42억원에 매도하기로 하는 매매계약을 체결하였고, 1999. 8. 2. 위 매매대금 채권과 송○○가 김○○에에 대여한 건축비 2억 4,000만원의 대여금 채권을 담보하기 위하여 이 사건 토지에 관하여 채권최고액 55억원의 근저당권설정등기를 경료하였다.

(2) ㈎ 김○○이 건축허가 명의를 자신으로 변경하고 이 사건 토지에 상가 및 오피스텔을 완공하여 1999. 10. 15. 소유권보존등기를 하자, 송○○는 1999. 10. 30. 원고에게 김○○에 대한 이 사건 토지의 매매대금채권 42억원 및 대여금채권 2억 4,000만원 합계 44억 4,000만원의 채권에 관한 추심을 위임하였다.

㈏ 이에 원고는 송○○로부터 추심을 위임받은 채권과 원고가 김○○에게 대여한 3억 5,000만원 합계 47억 9,000만원을 피담보채권으로 하여 1999. 10. 30. 이 사건 상가에 소유권이전청구권 보전을 위한 가등기를 경료하였다.

(3) ㈎ 송○○는 2000. 4. 22. 원고에게 위 추심위임한 매매대금채권 중 이 사건채권을 양도하고 2000. 5. 10. 김○○에게 그 통지를 하였으며, 원고는 2002. 12. 24. 서울지방법원에 김○○에 대하여 가등기에 기한 소유권이전등기의 청구소송을 제기하여 승소판결을 받았고, 위 판결은 김○○이 항소 및 상고를 하였으나 모두 기각되어 확정되었다.

㈏ 원고가 2003. 2. 25. 위 확정판결에 의하여 원고 명의의 이 사건 소유권이전등기를 경료하자, 김○○은 2003. 4. 15. 원고, 송○○, 대한토지신탁 주식회사를 상대로 하여 담보가등기에 기한 본등기 경료는 담보권실행에 해당한다는 이유로 사해행위취소 및 청산금 청구소송을 제기하여 그 소송 중에 2004. 8. 19. 조정이 성립되었는데 그 주요 내용은, 김○○은 이 사건 상가가 원고의 소유임을 확인하고, 원고가 김○○의 서○○에 대한 임대차보증금 1억원의 지급채무를 인수하며, 김○○은 원고에게 5,000만원을 지급하고, 이 사건 상가 중 점유하고 있는 일부를 원고에게 명도하며, 원고는 이 사건 상가 중 일부에 관한 2분의 1 공유지분을 김○○에게 소유권이전등기하고, 송○○는 이러한 조정조항에 동의하는 것 등이었다.

㈐ 한편, 원고는 2003. 4. 17.경 대한토지신탁 주식회사에 이 사건 상가에 관하여 신탁을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었는데, 위 신탁계약의 특약사항 제2조는 신탁계약의 수익자는 원고와 송○○로 하되, 그 수익지분비율에 대해서 원고와 송○○가 위 회사에 통보하고, 처분대금 정산시 각각의 지분비율에 상응하여 처리하기로 한다고 되어 있다.

(4) The Kim○ does not perform the obligation under the above conciliation provision to the Plaintiff up to now, and therefore, Kim○ applied for grant of the execution clause to the court that rendered conciliation on August 7, 2006, but did not execute the time limit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff did not perform the obligation under the above conciliation provision to Kim○.

(5) The director of the regional tax office of the Republic of Korea and China conducted a tax investigation with respect to Song○ from October 20, 2005 to January 11, 2006. On February 27, 2006, Song○○ filed an application against the Plaintiff for the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership of the instant commercial building on the ground of the performance of the delegated debt collection contract as of October 30, 199, and the conciliation was established on March 29, 2006.

[인정근거] 다툼 없는 사실, 갑3-1.2, 갑4-1˜3, 갑5, 6-각 1.2, 갑7-1˜3, 갑

8-1˜4, 갑9, 갑10, 11-각 1.2, 갑12-1˜7, 갑13, 갑14-1˜5, 갑15-1.2, 갑16˜18,

A19-1.2, A20, A21-1.2, A22, B1-4, B-2 of witnesses, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) According to the above facts, on October 30, 199, the plaintiff was not obligated to collect 4.2 billion won in total and 24.4 billion won in loan claims against the plaintiff, and was delegated to collect 4.4 billion won in total to the plaintiff's loan claims and 3.79 billion won in total to secure 4.7 billion won in loan claims against the plaintiff's ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed to secure 4.7 billion won in the name of Kim○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the plaintiff was not registered 2713.

(2) Calculation of a legitimate tax amount

㈎ 이 사건 채권의 양도와 이 사건 소유권이전등기를 증여로 볼 수 없는 이상, 이 사건 처분 중 이에 관한 2000년 및 2003년 귀속 각 증여세 부과처분의 정당세액은 모두 0원이다.

㈏ 이 사건 채권의 양도가 증여로 인정되지 않는 이상 이를 전제로 재차증여가산을 하여 부과한 2001년 귀속 증여세 부과처분은 그대로 유지될 수 없으므로, 이를 제외하고 정당세액을 계산하면 별지 2001년 귀속 증여세액 계산 기재와 같이 51,822,960원이다.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so ordered as per Disposition by admitting it.

shall be ruled.