증여세부과처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 15, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on October 31, 2013, on the ground of sale (transaction price of KRW 300,000,000) of Seodaemun-gu Seoul apartment No. 302 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) registered under the Plaintiff’s mother B’s name.
B. The Defendant conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on B around September 2015, and conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on B, and the Plaintiff’s supplementary assessed value under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter “the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act”) was 229,000,000 won of the instant apartment (the Plaintiff’s apartment as security of the instant apartment).
(3) 128,30,000 won [the amount revealed as being used by B out of the 100,000,000 won] the value of the donated property that was loaned from B was acquired, and the value of the donated property is KRW 128,30,000 [the value of the donated property is KRW 229,00,000-32,00,000] - MIN (229,000,000 x 30% x 30,000 won], the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26960, Feb. 5, 2016; hereinafter “Enforcement Decree
(1) On October 1, 2015, on October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff issued a disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 15,554,90 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”) upon the Plaintiff on October 31, 2015 pursuant to Article 35(1)1 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act, considering that it is see Article 26(1)3 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9, 10, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;
3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the apartment house of this case was KRW 300 million (i.e., KRW 180,000,000,000 in cash of KRW 100,000,000,000) from B.
The plaintiff provided a monetary support to the father D and mother B that require hospital expenses, living expenses, etc. and agreed that the deposit for lease has been increased as much as the amount equivalent thereto.