예금계좌 이체금을 증여로 보고 부과한 처분은 적법함[국승]
Cho High Court Decision 2010Du2708 ( November 17, 2010)
It is presumed that if the account of the deceased was withdrawn before the commencement of the inheritance, the donation will be presumed.
As long as the deposit in the name of a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authorities is withdrawn and deposited in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. It may be recognized that the deposit was deposited in the heir’s account in this case, but it is difficult to recognize that the deposit was repaid to the decedent.
2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, etc.
Park XX
The director of the tax office.
April 21, 201
May 19, 2011
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 26,960,00 as to the portion of gift tax of April 4, 200 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 200, KRW 24,672,640 as to the portion of gift tax of July 10, 200, KRW 404,575,430 as to the portion of gift tax of December 20, 200, and KRW 172,613,390 as to the portion of gift tax of December 20, 200, shall be revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. As the Plaintiff’s father’s deceased on August 8, 2008, ten inheritors, including the Plaintiff, reported and paid KRW 6,226,548,296 of inheritance tax calculated by adding KRW 4,894,37,600 to the value of the inherited property in advance, in addition to KRW 20,477,68,640.
B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a high-amount inheritance tax investigation on nine heirs including the decedent and the plaintiff, and around April 4, 200, deposited 106,000 won from the National Bank account (Account Number 275) in the name of the decedent and deposited x investment securities account (Account Number 773) in the name of the plaintiff. ② On July 10, 2000, the National Bank account (Account Number 371) in the name of the decedent was withdrawn from 90,000,000 won and deposited in the Bank account (Account Number 048) in the name of the plaintiff. ③ On December 20, 2000, the National Bank account (Account Number 365) in the name of the decedent was withdrawn from 60,000,000 won to 60,000,000 won in the name of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the "Account Number 360,000) in order.
C. On December 1, 2009, the Defendant notified by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office of the above investigation results, on the ground that the Plaintiff received each transfer money of this case from the decedent in addition to the Plaintiff’s prior donation property, and accordingly, received gift tax of KRW 26,960,00 on the first transfer of this case, KRW 24,672,640 on the second transfer of this case, KRW 404,575,430 on the gift tax on the third transfer of this case, and KRW 172,613,390 on the gift tax on the third transfer of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The facts of donation of the property, which is the requirement to impose gift tax, are proved by the tax authority. The Plaintiff received and used each of the instant funds from the decedent due to temporary light of funds, and repaid in cash within several months (the instant 1 transfer amount:0,000,000 won from the account of investment securities around April 6, 200, and repaid the instant 2 transfer amount: (a) around January 10, 2001, withdrawn KRW 90,000 from the account of the Bank of Korea and repaid KRW 340,00,000 from the account of the National Bank of Korea on February 8, 2001, and repaid KRW 260,000,000 on several occasions for about one year, and thus each of the instant dispositions of imposition was unlawful, since each of the instant dispositions of imposition was made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as the remainder of each of the instant donations.
B. Relevant statutes
It is as shown in the attached Form.
C. Determination
In a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there is a special correction, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, etc. for other purpose than donation, the burden of proving such fact shall be the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997; 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 200
In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the plaintiff withdrawn KRW 100,000,000 from the International Bank of Korea account on April 6, 2000 and withdrawn KRW 90,00,000 from the Industrial Bank of Korea account on January 10, 2001. However, each of the above statements alone is difficult to recognize that the above withdrawal was repaid to the decedent, and there is no evidence to support it. Accordingly, the defendant's disposition of this case on the ground that each of the instant transfers was donated to the plaintiff is legitimate.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.