It was argued that the real estate disposal cost was 00,000,000 won.

However, the Tax Tribunal is from the accounts of landscaping and maximum 00 from October 0, 2013 to May 00 of the same year.

At any time, cash has been withdrawn and deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, and the maximum of 00 accounts have been returned from the Plaintiff’s account.

좌로 송금되는 속칭 '뺑뺑이' 거래가 이루어졌기 때문에, 원고가 2013. 0. 00.부터 같은

No person shall be deemed to have actually paid the purchase price to the maximum 00 until 00.

On the ground that the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, the plaintiff was brought to the Tax Tribunal.

of this title, there is a different argument from that at the time of such filing.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.

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

On October 0, 2015, the disposition of imposition of the gift taxx members and the penalty taxx members imposed on the Plaintiff on the former Defendant on October 0, 2015 shall be revoked.

A. On October 00, 2013, the Plaintiff’s mother transferred the ownership of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government**** (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”). In the registry of the apartment, the grounds for registration are stated as “sale on October 00, 2013,” and the transaction value as “00,000,000 won”.

B. On October 00, 2015, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff donated the instant apartment from the maximum00, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of gift tax Xx and penalty tax Xxx. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection on October 0, 2015, and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on October 0, 2016, but was dismissed on July 6 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In around 208, the Plaintiff acquired a New York attorney qualification in the United States of America, and returned to the Republic of Korea around 2013, and the Plaintiff’s mother purchased the instant apartment from 00,000 won for the purpose of residing in the Republic of Korea. At the time, the market price of the instant real estate was approximately KRW 00,000,000, which the Plaintiff transferred from around 2007 to February 2013, 200 to the Plaintiff’s family members (the vice landscaping, the upperest 00,000, and the 00,000,000 won which would later be remitted for living expenses.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the gift of the instant real estate from the maximum00, the instant disposition made on a different premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

Article 44(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11845, May 28, 2013; hereinafter the same) provides that “The property transferred to his/her spouse, or lineal ascendants or descendants (hereinafter “spouse, etc.”) shall be presumed to have been donated to his/her spouse, etc. at the time of transfer of the property by the transferor, and shall be deemed to have been donated to his/her spouse, etc. and shall be deemed to have been donated to his/her donated property.” Article 44(1)5 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that “Where it is clearly acknowledged that he/she has received and transferred the property to his/her spouse, etc., and where it falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 33(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 44(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall not apply.”

According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 7 and 10, the following facts are as follows: ① from January 2007 to March 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff’s transfer of money from time to time from time to time to the Plaintiff’s family’s account, including maximum 00,000 won; ② The Plaintiff purchased the apartment of this case from the maximum 00,000,000 won on October 00, 2013, and the down payment amount of KRW 00,000 on October 0, 2013, the intermediate payment of KRW 00,000 on October 00, 2013, the remainder payment of KRW 00,000,000 on October 00, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed on the sales contract (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”).

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from a maximum00, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff’s account from time to time transferred money to the Plaintiff’s family account, or that the Plaintiff’s seal of maximum 00 was affixed to the instant sales contract, and that the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from the maximum 00, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is groundless.

1) In order to establish a contract, the agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and such agreement is not required with respect to all matters that form the content of the contract in question, but there is a need to agree with the specific intent regarding its essential or important matters or at least on the standards and methods that can specify them in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001). In order to establish a sales contract, the basic subject matter of the sales contract and the subject matter of the sales contract, which are the essential matter of the sales contract, need not be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and the criteria and methods that can specify them

However, the Plaintiff is merely an abstract assertion that the market price of the apartment of this case was approximately KRW 000,000,000, and that the Plaintiff determined KRW 000,000,000, which was remitted to the Plaintiff’s family members from around 2007 to February 2013 as living expenses, and approximately KRW 000,000,000 to be later remitted, and there is no assertion or proof as to whether the accurate amount of the purchase price was determined, and whether the criteria and methods to specify the specific amount of the purchase price was determined after the fact.

2) The Plaintiff’s father landscape gardening, claiming that the real seller of the instant real estate is also the Plaintiff’s father, but the market price of the instant apartment was approximately KRW 00,000,000, or approximately KRW 00,000 from the Plaintiff until February 2, 2013, only abstract assertion that the Plaintiff was fully paid the remaining purchase price and did not specify the amount of the accurate purchase price.

3) The Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion is inconsistent with the content that the payment of the remainder KRW 00,00,000 is made on October 00, 2013, and the intermediate payment KRW 000,000,000 on April 00, 2013, and the remainder KRW 00,000,000 on May 00, 2013, as indicated in the instant sales contract.

4) At the time the Plaintiff filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal from October 0, 2013 to May 00, 201 of the same year, the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000,000 to the maximum 00 won of the purchase price. KRW 00,000,000 of the purchase price; KRW 00,000 of the Plaintiff’s property donated to the Plaintiff’s parents; KRW 00,000,000 of the loan amount; KRW 00,000,000 of the loan amount donated to the Plaintiff’s parents;