소득이 없는 가정주부에게 증여추정으로 증여세 과세한 처분의 당부[국승]
propriety of a disposition imposing gift tax on a non-income family owner in the presumption of gift;
In light of occupation, income, property relations, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the money withdrawn by the home owner in his/her name from the passbook in his/her name is not self-acquisition.
Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Estimated donation of funds for acquiring property
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of each gift tax on April 1, 2004 by the defendant against the plaintiff on April 1, 2004 shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for correction as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and
(a) To correct the ○○-2-○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”).
B. The plaintiff's argument at 4th 16-19 of the 4th 16-19 " is without merit. It is presumed that property, such as property under the name of one of the married couple, is its unique property. Thus, even if the plaintiff's argument is based on the plaintiff's assertion, it is insufficient to reverse the above presumption unless there is any proof as to the substantial reason, such as the presumption, such as the presumption presumed to be special property of Park○-○, and the plaintiff who is the spouse's acquisition, bears compensation or liability, or made an effort to actively increase his/her property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu707, Jun. 12, 1998). The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
C. The 5-7 of the first 5th 5th e.g., “the withdrawal is recognized, but this fund was deposited on August 16, 2001, so long as there is no proof that the source of the fund was acquired by the Plaintiff with its own funds,” there seems to be room to view that the Plaintiff had been holding one cash of more than KRW 100 million around October 201. However, according to the statements in the evidence No. 4 and the evidence No. 10, the above passbook No. 87,272,637 on April 16, 201 in the above passbook, the opening and termination of the term deposit is repeated on a monthly basis as the date of deposit with the maturity of KRW 87,272,637 on August 16, 201. The Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the money deposited with the term deposit on September 28, 2001 as above, without considering the above evidence, the Plaintiff’s first e.g., the Plaintiff’s income amount without its own funds’s own funds.
D. The plaintiff's above assertion is not sufficient to be recognized only with the statement No. 13 written before the 6th 7th pedal."
2. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
List of Gift Tax
Date of Notice
Date of donation
The notified tax amount (cost)
April 1, 2004
December 21, 2001
9,179,720
October 18, 2002
8,686,780
November 7, 2002
1,441,810
December 26, 2002
4,277,220
December 30, 2002
61,330,000
July 24, 2003
14,527,900
Total
9,443,430