원고가 부친에게 지급한 이 사건 금액은 부양의 의무를 이행한 것으로 원고는 부친으로부터 이 사건 부동산을 증여받은 것임[국패]
The amount of this case paid by the plaintiff to the plaintiff was donated to the plaintiff as the plaintiff fulfilled the duty of support.
The plaintiff cannot regard the amount of this case paid to the plaintiff to the purchase price of the apartment and fulfilled the duty of support as a donation of the real estate of this case from the plaintiff
Presumption of donation of property transferred to the spouse, etc. under Article 42 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2016Guhap52815 Revocation of Disposition rejecting to correct gift tax
Hyo
○ Head of tax office
November 25, 2016
December 16, 2016
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
The Defendant’s disposition of refusal to correct gift tax against the Plaintiff on November 4, 2015 is revoked.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the ground of ○○○○-dong, ○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○-dong (hereinafter “instant apartment”)’s donation on June 16, 2014.
B. On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff reported and paid the gift tax amount of KRW 00,000,000 to the Defendant on September 30, 2014, with the value of the instant apartment as KRW 000,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 000,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 00,000,000, donated property credit, and the amount of KRW 00,000,00.
C. On August 13, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a request for correction with the Defendant for the refund of KRW 00,000,000,000 paid for the acquisition price of the Plaintiff’s new 00,000, as it should be deducted from the value of donated property. On November 4, 2015, the Defendant rejected the said request for correction on the ground that the payment of the acquisition price claimed by the Plaintiff on November 4, 2015, as the daily living cost performing the duty of support, cannot be deemed the transfer price of the apartment of this case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
D. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal on January 27, 2016, but did not err in the tax judgment.
On April 28, 2016, the Board dismissed the above appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 (if any, numbered)
set forth in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff’s father 00 does not have sufficient means to cover living expenses due to the absence of regular income, or to repay the debt with the collateral security that was created on the instant apartment. As such, the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant apartment from January 23, 2002 to the time of completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment from January 23, 200 to the time of completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff should deduct KRW 00,000 from the value of donated property.
Even if the Plaintiff donated the instant apartment, it constitutes an onerous donation that pays KRW 000,000,000 to the new 00 in return for receiving the instant apartment in return for receiving it, and thus, the amount of KRW 00,000,000 should be deducted from the taxable value of donated apartment.
B. Determination
1) Facts of recognition
A) On June 16, 2014, when the Plaintiff’s father transferred the instant apartment to the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff owned the site for a factory where the rental income amounting to KRW 1 million per month, in addition to the instant apartment, was generated for the purpose of residence, and had two children other than the Plaintiff.
B) On December 23, 2008, new00 completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the instant apartment on December 23, 2008. At the time, the registration of initial ownership was completed on the instant apartment, with the content that the registration of initial ownership was completed prior to the establishment of the mortgage amount of KRW 00,000,000,000. The additional registration was completed on May 20, 201, changing the maximum debt amount of the said establishment registration to KRW 00,000,000.
C) From January 23, 2002 to August 27, 2014, a total of KRW 000,000,000 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s name in the 00 bank account and 00 account in the name of the Plaintiff.
D) On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the donation on June 16, 2014 with respect to the instant apartment.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3 through 7, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2) Determination
The following circumstances revealed by the above facts and evidence, i.e., (1) 00 and the Plaintiff’s new account opened under the name of 00, and there was no specific purchase price or burden between the parties regarding the sale and purchase of the instant apartment, and (2) 00 were to exist at the time of the transfer of the instant apartment, but there is no inevitable circumstance or need to sell the instant apartment as at the time of the transfer of the apartment, and (3) 00 were to be the Plaintiff’s new account opened under the name of 00 or 100, and only the Plaintiff’s new account opened under the name of 00 or 200 were to be paid for 10 years since its new account opened under the name of 00 or 300, and each of the instant apartment bonds was paid for 20 years since its new account opened under the name of 00 or 200, respectively. (3) The Plaintiff’s new account was also paid for 200 years since its purchase of the instant apartment bonds as well as 200 years old account.
Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received free donation from the new00 the remainder except for the amount of debt secured by the apartment of this case from the value of the apartment of this case. Therefore, there is no illegality as alleged by the Plaintiff in the disposition of this case.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
section 3.