Article 34 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquisition of Property)

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

A. On August 30, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased 180,000,000 won for the purchase of 528-25 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the instant land") in Dong-dong, Gwangju, Dong-dong, Gwangju, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the Plaintiff's name on the 26th of the same month, and newly constructed the 2nd floor building (hereinafter referred to as "the instant building," hereinafter referred to as "the instant building," and hereinafter referred to as "each of the instant real estate" in combination with the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff's name on January 14, 2004.

B. In the financing investigation conducted from August 11, 2005 to September 2, 2005, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff was not able to acquire the land and buildings of this case, and presumed that the Plaintiff was donated the amount of KRW 180 million for acquiring the land of this case and KRW 11.47 million for constructing the building of this case from the Plaintiff’s father’s new father’s ○○. On October 1, 2005, the Defendant determined that the Plaintiff was donated the gift tax amount of KRW 27,854,00 and KRW 16,150,167 (the date of preservation registration of the building of this case) donated on January 14, 2004 (the date of registration of the building of this case).

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an objection against each of the above dispositions on December 20, 2005, the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office decided to dismiss the portion of the gift tax of this case (2003). Of the gift tax of this case (2004), the Director of the Gwangju Regional Tax Office recognized the rental deposit of KRW 15 million for the donated property of this case as the fund for acquiring the building and notified the amount of KRW 86.47 million for the donated property of the building (i.e., KRW 1., KRW 1.47 million - KRW 1.477 million - KRW 1,207,027 from among the donated property of this case) to reduce the amount of KRW 14,943,140 ( = 16,150,167- - KRW 1,207,027) as the gift tax of this case, and notified the gift tax of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, 12, Eul evidence 1, 13, 14-1, 14-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the funds for the acquisition or new construction of each real estate of this case were appropriated from the beginning of August 1999 to the acquisition date of each real estate of this case for the amount that the plaintiff received from the plaintiff's father's actual operation of the KO Center in the name of new ○○, the plaintiff does not receive a donation for the acquisition or new construction of each of the above real estate from the new ○○, and even if the money was donated to the ○○, the plaintiff did not convert the loan debts under the name of new ○, which occurred in relation to the acquisition of each of the above real estate into the name of the plaintiff and ultimately, the plaintiff bears a debt of KRW 185 million against the ○○, ○○, Inc., and thus, it should be deducted from the taxable value of each of the above real estate.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquiring Property)

Article 34 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquisition of Property)

C. Determination

(1) As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is a matter of proof by the tax authority. Thus, even if a considerable number of incomes were to have accrued from the occupation expected at the time of acquisition of the property, and a person who actually had considerable incomes therefrom, barring special circumstances, the portion of the funds needed to acquire the property cannot be recognized as having been donated to another person, unless there is a special circumstance. However, in a case where a person without a special occupation or re-existence fails to prove that he/she would be able to receive the funds for acquisition of the property, and such lineal ascendant, etc. have re-refluent ability to receive the funds, it is presumed that the funds for acquisition of the property were donated from a lineal ascendant, etc., and it is necessary to verify the fact that the funds were used as the funds for acquisition of the property, and even if there were some incomes in a certain occupation, the amount of the funds needed to acquire the property cannot be recognized as having been donated to the third person, barring special circumstances.

(2) However, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 15 each statement, the following facts, namely, the plaintiff, as a result of intelligent inspection on Nov. 25, 2005, 76 language function, 88, and 80, so-called so-called 'psymsymsymsysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysysys

(3) Comprehensively taking account of each of the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired each of the instant real estates from the New Airport, his father, and even if it is recognized that the Plaintiff had attempted to perform the automobile maintenance business within the new ○○○ by obtaining a certificate of qualification for automobile maintenance after graduating from an industrial high school in light of the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 through 7, and 12 (including the paper number). However, such fact alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition.

(4) Meanwhile, according to Article 47 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of onerous donation, the taxable amount of gift tax shall be the total amount of donated property as of the date of donation minus the amount taken over by the donee as debts secured by the gift. However, in full view of the overall purport of pleadings as to the statement of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 8 as of the date of donation, a new bill borrowed a sum of KRW 160 million in its name at the time when the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case, and it is acknowledged that the name of the debtor was changed to the Plaintiff for the purpose of recognizing business expenses upon the construction of the new building of this case. In this case, in which the “acquisition or new construction funds of each real estate of this case” was the object of donation, the change of the debtor’s name cannot be deemed to have taken over the debts secured by donated property, and in applying the above provision of Article 47 (1) of the same Act, the presumption of debts between the spouse or between lineal ascendants and descendants is not changed to the debtor’s name.

3. Conclusion

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