매매대금 중 일부를 타인 명의의 예금계좌를 통해 증여받은 것으로 추정됨[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 201Guhap23405 ( November 25, 2011)
Cho High Court Decision 201Do0459 (O6.02)
Part of the purchase amount is presumed to have been donated through a deposit account in the name of another person.
(1) As long as the fact that part of the purchase price received by selling an apartment is deposited in the savings account in the name of another person through the deposit account in the name of the other person, the said money can be presumed to have been donated, and there is no submission of objectively supporting the fact that the apartment was leased with the purchase price or money, and the initial imposition of gift tax is legitimate.
2011Nu43043 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Gift Tax
Park XX
Head of the District Tax Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 201Guhap23405 decided November 25, 2011
June 21, 2012
July 5, 2012
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 defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 on December 1, 2010 to the plaintiff on December 1, 201 (the recorded tax amount seems to include penalty tax).
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This Court's reasoning is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the decision is as stated in the reasoning of the decision of the court of first instance, except for the part concerning "...." between the third and fourth of the decision of the court of first instance, the part concerning "...." among the grounds for the decision of the court of first instance, as stated in the following 2.2."
2. Parts used for judgment;
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tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.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 a taxpayer, etc. for purposes other than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997; 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).
However, the following circumstances revealed by the facts cited above and evidence, i.e., (i) 00 won, which is part of the purchase price of the apartment complex, (hereinafter referred to as “the issues of this case”) was deposited into the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name through the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name, barring special circumstances such as that it was made for any purpose other than donation, the key issue amount of this case may be presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff. (ii) If, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the IC has repaid the issue amount of this case to the Plaintiff under the pretext of borrowing the Plaintiff’s name and its interest, it seems that there is no reason for the Plaintiff to pay it by the method of using the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff’s friendship, and (iii) the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was not sufficient to provide the funds necessary for the Plaintiff to acquire the apartment complex, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was not sufficient to use the receipts of this case under the name of the Plaintiff’s 1 to purchase the apartment house under the name of the Plaintiff.
Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that there is a special circumstance that the Plaintiff received the instant amount as a repayment for a loan, not as a gift, from the competent AA.
3. Conclusion
If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal of this case is dismissed as it is without reason.