2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of the gift tax OOO on March 5, 2012 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

"A. On December 13, 2007, 00 OB, the father of the Plaintiff, confirmed the fact that OB was deposited from the bank account of the Plaintiff on December 13, 2007, 150-12 OB, 150-12, 468 square meters and 483 square meters (hereinafter "land to be expropriated"), and the head of Sungbuk District Tax Office, upon the death of BaB on September 6, 2008 (hereinafter "OB network"), notified the Defendant of the fact that the OBO (hereinafter "the issues of this case") was deposited from the bank account of the Plaintiff on December 24, 2007, and notified the Plaintiff of the issue of the gift tax, and the Defendant was subject to the disposition of the Plaintiff on December 27, 2017, 207, 2000, 20000 won as the gift tax Tribunal (hereinafter "the gift tax Tribunal on September 27, 2012).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) While the Deceased intended to establish an art gallery, etc. on the ground of 150 m2,000 m3,787 m2,000 m2, and 150-7 m2,000 m2 (hereinafter “the pertinent land”), it was difficult for the Deceased to directly perform construction due to disputes with Sungnam-si, etc. regarding the construction permit. On July 3, 2003, when it delegated all matters related to the construction of the Plaintiff’s art gallery, the Deceased’s construction of the art gallery, etc. at the Plaintiff’s expense, the Deceased agreed to later settle the amount of the Plaintiff’s land sale, donation, inheritance, and land expropriation compensation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received money from the DDR and paid the OO as the total amount of construction cost to the 200 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination on the assertion of repayment

(A) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, insofar as the deposit in the name of a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name, etc. were made for purposes other than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 1

(B) As long as it is revealed that the OOOO of the instant case owned by the deceased was deposited into the bank account in the name of the plaintiff, the said issue amount is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiff. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the said issue amount was paid by the deceased for the expenses incurred in performing the duties delegated by the deceased as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this portion of the plaintiff's assertion, and therefore, there is no reason to support this portion of the plaintiff's assertion.

① 원고는 이 사건 쟁점 토지 지상에 시설물 등을 설치하면서 그 설치대금 등 명목으로 FFF 홍EE에게 합계 OOOO원, GGG조경 권HH에게 합계 OOOO원, III 백JJ에게 합계 OOOO원, KK상사 안LL에게 합계 OOOO원, MM상사 오NN에게 합계 OOOO원, PPP상사 심QQ에게 OOOO원, RR무역 홍SS에게 합계 OOOO원, TTT 김UU에게 OOOO원, VVV조경 강WW에게 OOOO원, XXX농원 홍YY에게 OOOO원을 전액 현금으로 지급하였다고 주장하나, 위 지급대금은 합계 OOOO원에 달하는 거액임에도 이를 모두 현금으로 지급하였다는 것은 상식적으로 납득하기 어렵다.

② The deceased’s heir claimed against the plaintiff that the deceased’s heir was in violation of his legal reserve of inheritance or gift by donation or testamentary gift of the pertinent land, cash, etc. to the plaintiff. The Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap12738 claimed that the deceased’s heir was in violation of his/her legal reserve of inheritance. In the above lawsuit, the key amount was the basis for calculating his/her legal reserve of inheritance, which was recognized as the deceased’s active inherited property. The plaintiff did not assert that the key amount of this case was paid as the settlement of expenses incurred by the plaintiff under the delegation agreement with the deceased, and thus, should be excluded from inheritance or gift property.

③ On November 29, 2006, the Plaintiff recognized the fact of donation and reported and paid gift tax on the real estate donated, such as the instant land donated on November 29, 2006. It is difficult to find a reasonable ground to treat the instant money and the instant land differently in determining the subject matter of gift tax.

(2) Determination on the assertion of mutual aid

According to the evidence Nos. 22 and 23, the issue amount of this case was paid to the Plaintiff’s account on Feb. 29, 2008 and Apr. 14, 2008, after the deposit of the Plaintiff’s account. However, according to the evidence Nos. 2-1, it can be acknowledged that the deceased had a considerable liquid asset such as cash OOOO or certificate of deposit, etc. at the time of the death. In light of the above, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the transfer income tax on behalf of the Deceased on behalf of the Deceased on the ground of each of the evidence Nos. 22, 23 and 24.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax, etc. on behalf of the deceased, in light of the fact that Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that once the Plaintiff received a donation on behalf of the deceased, it shall not be excluded from donated property even if the donation was returned by the deadline for report under Article 68 of the same Act, so long as the key amount of this case is recognized to have been donated to the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax, etc. on behalf of the deceased on behalf of the deceased, the amount may not be excluded from donated property. Therefore, in order to be excluded from donated property, the amount should not be excluded from donated property just because the Plaintiff paid capital gains tax, etc. on behalf of the deceased, etc.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.