Man Doz 300

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 9, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a new savings life mutual aid agreement (hereinafter referred to as “the instant mutual aid agreement”) of the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Agricultural Cooperative”) which is the husband of each Plaintiff, the beneficiary of the mutual aid agreement of KRW 500,00,000, and the beneficiary of the mutual aid agreement of KRW 500,000 from the date of the mutual aid agreement, five years from the date of the mutual aid agreement, and the mutual aid agreement of the beneficiary of the mutual aid agreement of KRW 5,00,00 from the date of the mutual aid agreement, and withdrawal of KRW 50,000 from the deposit of the Plaintiff’s own name to the mutual aid agreement of KRW 18,622,793,091 from the date of termination, and the mutual aid agreement of KRW 500,000 from June 18, 202 was additionally withdrawn from the mutual aid agreement of this case.

C. On December 13, 2005, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,238,053,887, which was after the maturity of the instant mutual aid, by receiving KRW 1,238,053,887 from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff, and then, KRW 1,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account was subscribed to the Agricultural Cooperative’s Savings Life Deductions under the name of the Plaintiff and used it as the paid-in mutual aid, and the remaining KRW 238,053,887 was deposited into the account in the Plaintiff’s account.

D. On January 18, 2010, the Defendant imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 126,00,000 on the amount of KRW 50,000,000 on June 18, 2002 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with respect to the said amount of KRW 126,00,000 on the Plaintiff, and imposed a disposition of imposition of KRW 135,058,360 on the amount of KRW 738,05,00 on the insurance amount received on December 13, 2005, among the insurance amount received on December 13, 2005.

E. On April 7, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for review with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service. On June 28, 2010, the Commissioner of the National Tax Service rendered a decision to revoke the disposition imposing KRW 135,058,360 for the year 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 12, 14, 16, 17, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation of the substance over form principle

The court of law is a holder of high-amount cash assets, and the plaintiff is a professional owner, while maintaining a patriarchal marital relationship, and all of the series of financial transactions have been dealt with by the court of law independently without the plaintiff's involvement. This case's deduction is also unlawful in light of the substance over form principle, although the plaintiff merely borrowed only the name of the contract of the plaintiff while the court of law was admitted, and the actual transaction party was a party and the court of law did not have the intent of the plaintiff to donate the premium to the plaintiff, although the court of law did not intend to contribute the premium to the plaintiff.

(2) Invalidity of the instant mutual aid agreement

The instant mutual aid agreement constitutes a life insurance contract for which the Plaintiff’s death was determined as an insured accident. Since the late AA concluded the instant mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was unaware of it, the instant mutual aid agreement is null and void in violation of Article 731(1) of the Commercial Act, which provides for the Plaintiff’s written consent at the time of concluding the instant mutual aid agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff did not acquire property rights in relation to the instant mutual aid agreement because it did not have any authority over the instant mutual aid agreement because it did not have any authority over the instant mutual aid agreement and thus, there is no room to recognize the Plaintiff’s mutual aid agreement as

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to the assertion of violation of the substance over form principle

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a 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 at the corner of a taxpayer’s deposit account, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of the taxpayer, etc., made for other purpose than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13,

The testimony of Gap, Gap, 9, 15, 18, and 19 is insufficient to recognize that the late A was made for any purpose other than donation by withdrawing money from his account in his own name and paying the deducted amount of the credit in this case under the name of the plaintiff. Rather, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged in the above facts are the contract parties of the mutual aid contract of this case, namely, the plaintiff, and the contract parties of the mutual aid contract of this case are the plaintiff, and the premium of this case was deposited from the termination amount of the new type trust in the name of the late A, and some of the premium of this case was used again as the funds of other mutual aid in the name of the plaintiff, and the remainder was deposited in the plaintiff's account in the name of the plaintiff. In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the mutual aid premium of this case was donated to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the allegation on invalidity of the instant mutual aid agreement

In light of the above facts, the parties to the mutual aid agreement of this case shall be deemed to be the plaintiff, and the testimony of the evidence Nos. 9, 15, 18, and 19 and each testimony of the witness KimB, and the appellate court is insufficient to recognize that the appellate court is the party to the mutual aid agreement of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's assertion also is without merit without any need to further examine the remaining points.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.