Man Doz 300

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

457,489,590 won shall be revoked.

쇠지지鹬 u3000

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 27, 2003, the Plaintiff’s husband KimA sold the pertinent building at 4.5 billion won (hereinafter “instant building”) and the EEE building at 887.2m2m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) on the 4.5 billion won on the ground of the Plaintiff’s husband’s Dadong 488-30 site (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. As a result of conducting a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, the Defendant deemed that KRW 2,374,190,958 out of the sales price of the instant real estate was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account as follows, and determined and notified a total of KRW 990,643,440 of the gift tax amount (hereinafter “instant disposition”) as stated in the “the initial tax amount column in the attached list.”

C. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant. On January 19, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that on June 28, 2003, KRW 15,000, out of KRW 2,374,190,958, the Plaintiff deposited the Plaintiff’s account as above, the KRW 15,000,000, out of KRW 150,000 deposited on June 28, 2003, the amount deposited on June 2, 2005 was not KRW 311,095,000,000, not KRW 311,095,000, and the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff paid interest of KRW 894,285,000 on a financial institution loan of KimA on behalf of the Plaintiff, the rectification of the gift tax amount was excluded from the gift tax amount.

D. According to the above decision of correction, the Defendant corrected and notified the Plaintiff of the gift tax amount as stated in the column for correction of the attached list, on June 30, 2003, as zero won, KRW 857,905,950 of the taxable amount of gift taxes, July 11, 2003, KRW 200 million of the taxable amount of gift taxes, August 1, 2003, KRW 311,095,950 of the taxable amount of gift taxes, which was June 2, 2005, and KRW 1,369,01,958 of the taxable amount of gift taxes (total of the taxable amount of gift taxes).

E. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on August 21, 2009.

[Grounds for Recognition: Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 15, 16, 35, 40, Eul's evidence No. 1, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the above KRW 1,369,01,958, which the Plaintiff received from KimA, was not a donation from KimA, but was paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of KimA or received as a property division, and even if not, the Plaintiff was paid part of the money agreed to be paid by KimA, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of this case, which reported otherwise, should be revoked.

1) The Plaintiff paid the sum of KRW 261,893,000,00 in cash from June 4, 1999 to August 2, 2000, to KRW 261,893,000 as interest on KRW 1.9 billion that the Plaintiff received from the FF Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FF life insurance”).

2) The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 202,286,00 from KimG, one of its own children, and repaid the management expenses of the instant building or the interest on the loan borrowed to construct the said building instead of the Plaintiff.

3) From around June 2001 to June 2003, the Plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 362,964,200 (such as electricity charges and consolidated public charges for the instant building (such as KRW 354,508,190 + integrated public charges + KRW 8,456,010) instead of KimA, from around June 2003, the Plaintiff sold the instant building.

4) The Plaintiff was transferred KRW 311,095,000 under the pretext of property division on June 2, 2005, when there was a divorce between the Plaintiff and KimA.

5) The Plaintiff raised funds necessary for the construction of the instant building from the sale price, etc. of his own real estate, and prepared a letter of 1.4 billion won in total (A evidence No. 11, hereinafter referred to as “each letter of this case”) from KimA in order to receive return of funds invested in the construction of the said building from KimA.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

1) The burden of proof of the existence of the taxation requirement fact is against the tax authority, but if the facts alleged in the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule are revealed in the litigation process, it cannot be deemed an illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirement against the tax imposition disposition unless it proves such circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu6006, Apr. 27, 1990; 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). Therefore, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the above KRW 1,369,01,958, which is part of the proceeds from the sale of the real estate owned by Kim A, remitted to the Plaintiff, and thus, the above KRW 1,369,001,01,958, which is part of the proceeds from the sale of the real estate in this case, was remitted to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2) As to the first argument

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 15 through 17, part of Gap evidence No. 24, and witness KimA's testimony on June 4, 1999, KimA obtained a loan of KRW 1.9 billion from F bio-resources as collateral; the above loan interest of KRW 1.9 billion was paid in cash from June 4, 1999 to August 2, 200; the plaintiff filed an appeal against the above disposition of KRW 261,893,00,00 with the Tax Tribunal; the plaintiff submitted a receipt of interest payment of KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was not paid in cash; the plaintiff received KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000 won from his account other than that paid in cash; and the plaintiff received KRW 1.08,000,00,00,000.

3) As to the second argument

Considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 18, Gap evidence Nos. 19-1 through 3, and witness KimA's testimony, the plaintiff may acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff received a total of KRW 201,925,380 from his own arche KimG during the period from March 8, 1997 to March 5, 2003. However, in full view of the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 1, the plaintiff asserted that the above 201,925,380 won was repaid for the construction of the above building or the above 201,925,380 won, since there is no direct evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff used the above 201,925,380 won for the sale of the building in question, the plaintiff did not have any other reason to acknowledge that the above 5G rent and the above 5G rent were repaid for the above 100G building in light of the lack of evidence that it was actually used for the above 25G and the above 5G rent.

4) As to the third argument

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence 19 through 3, Gap evidence 20, and Eul evidence 20 and Eul evidence 37, the plaintiff's testimony from October 5, 1992 to December 28, 2004, the total amount of electricity charges for the building of this case is equivalent to 365,722,310 won, and the total amount of 8,456,010 won for the integrated public charges from October 31, 1992 to October 31, 1994. However, in light of the above facts, the plaintiff's assertion that the above tenant's electricity charges were collected from 0,44, and Eul evidence 8, it is not reasonable to recognize that the above tenant's electricity charges were collected from 365,722,310,000,000 won from the building of this case to 36,000,0000,000 from 30,000,000.

5) On the fourth argument

In full view of Gap evidence No. 21, part of Gap evidence No. 24, testimony of witness Kim Dong, and fact-finding conducted by this court to the Seoul East District Court on January 14, 1970, although the plaintiff and Kim Dong reported the marriage on July 12, 2005, the plaintiff and Kim Dong reported the divorce on July 12, 2005. However, there is no objective evidence as to the fact that the plaintiff and Kim Dong agreed on the division of property at the time of the divorce, and the plaintiff's assertion that the claim amount against Kim Dong was 2,228,143,200 won (261,893,000 won + 202,286,000 won + 362,964,200 won + 1,41,000,000 won) and there is no reason to acknowledge that the plaintiff was transferred from Kim Dong under the above empirical rule, and there is no reason to recognize that it was transferred under the pretext of division of property.

6) As to the fifth argument

"갑 제 1, 2, 4 내지 8, 11, 13, 14, 29 내지 31호증, 갑 제25호증의 1 내지 10, 을 제1호증의 각 기재, 갑 제24호증의 일부 기재, 증인 김AA의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 김AA이 원고에게 이 사건 건물과 관련하여 원고가 부담한 현금 1억 4,700만 원과 공장 매각대금 4억 5,000만 원 및 원고가 차입한 돈에 대하여 매년 이자를 지불할 것을 약정하고 원금은 이 사건 건물 매각과 동시에 상환할 것을 약속하는 내용의 1994. 6. 20.자 이 사건 각서가 작성된 사실, 이 사건 각서에는 김AA이 1996. 9. 30. 기재한 '초이동 매각대금 2억 500만 원도 위와 같음', 1998. 4. 30. 기재한가리봉동 부당이득금 반환 2억 4,400만 원도 위와 같음',3억 5,500만 원도 위와 같음' 등의 내용이 각 기재되어 있는 사실, 김AA은 1964. 7. 20. 서울 NN구 OO동 233-20 대 271㎡를, 1980. 4. 23.경에는 같은 동 233-19 대 182㎡의 지분 전부를 각 매수하였는데, 1982. 3. 29. 위 대 182㎡ 지상에 3층 건물을 신축한 사실, 김AA 은 1990. 11. 28. 위 각 대지와 건물을 백PP에게 매도한 사실, 김AA은 1979. 6. 13. 이 사건 토지를 취득하고 1990. 5. 23. 그 지상에 이 사건 건물을 신축한 사실, 원고는 1976. 5. 21. QQ시 RR동 259-3 소재 공장건물과 같은 동 259-1 전 532 ㎡를 매입하였고 1991. 4. 20.과 1991. 5. 4. 문SS에게 이를 각 매각한 사실, 원고는 1979. 11. 24. 광주시 TT면 VV리 127 전 1,825㎡를 매입하였다가 1996. 9. 5. 유UU에게 이를 매각한 사실, 원고는 1985. 7. 13. 서울 WW구 YYY동 126-38, 같은 동 126-39, 같은 동 126-40 토지의 지분을 소유하고 있었는데 위 각 토지 지상 건물 소유자 37명을 상대로 차임 상당의 부당이득반환청구의 소(서울서부지방법원 95 가합22178)를 제기하여 1997. 11. 13. 승소판결을 선고받은 사실, 김AA은 1990. 3. 28.경부터 1997. 4. 25.경까지 사이에 2,861,579,458원 상당의 약속어음이나 당좌수표를 발행한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.",한편, 갑 제1, 내지 3, 5, 11, 34호증, 갑 제10호증의 1, 2, 을 제1호증, 을 제11호증의 1 내지 3의 각 기재, 증인 김AA의 일부 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고가 이 사건 부동산 매매대금으로 이 사건 각서상의 약정금 합계 14억 100만 원을 변제받았다면 위 각서에 그 취지를 기재하는 것이 경험칙에 부합함에도 이 사건 각서에는 위 14억 100만 원을 변제받았다는 내용이 기재되어 있지 않은 사실(특히 원고 주장과 같이 위 1,369,001,958원 중 311,095,000원을 재산분할 명목으로 받았다면 이 사건 각서에 그러한 내용을 기재하는 것이 경험칙에 부합한다), 원고가 이 사건 각서 의 내용대로 김AA으로부터 위 14억 100만 원에 대한 이자를 지급받았다는 점을 입증할 아무런 자료가 없는 사실, 원고 주장과 같이 김AA이 이 사건 건물을 신축할 당시 차입한 사채 원금 및 이자를 원고 자금으로 변제하였다는 점을 입증할 객관적 자료는 없는 사실, 원고는 이 사건 처분에 대하여 피고에게 이의신청을 하거나 조세심판원에 이의신청을 할 당시 이 사건 각서에 기한 약정금 채권이 있다는 주장을 전혀 하지 않다가 이 사건 소를 제기하면서 비로소 위와 같은 주장을 한 사실, 원고와 김AA은 1993.경 김영삼으로부터 2억 5,000만 원을 벌렸으나 1993. 10.경까지 그 중 1억 5,000만 원을 변제한 사실, 가정의학과 전문의인 김AA은 1969. 11. 28.경부터 2005. 2. 27.경까지 ZZ의원을 운영하였을 뿐만 아니라 1989. 5. 18.부터 2003. 6. 28.까지 이 사건 건물임대업을, 1980. 8. 1.부터 1990. 11. 30.까지 서울 NN구 OO동 243-23 소재 건물의 임대업을 하고 있었기 때문에 상당한 자력이 있었던 것으로 보이는 사실, 김AA은 1997. 6. 30. HH생명으로부터 10억 원을 대출받았다가 1999. 6. 4. 이 사건 부동산을 담보로 FF생명으로부터 19억 원을 대출받으면서 위 10억 원을 변제하였고 2001. 8. 28. HH생명으로부터 이 사건 부동산을 담보로 20억 원을 대출받으면서 위 19억 원을 변제하였는바, 김AA이 위와 같이 금융기관으로부터 대출을 받음으로써 이 사건 건물을 신축할 당시 차입한 자금을 대부분 변제한 것으로 보이는 점, 앞에서 본 바와 같이 원고가 김AA 대신 위 금융기관 대출금에 대한 이자를 대부분 변제한 점 등을 감안할 때 위와 같이 금융기관으로부터 대출을 받은 이후에는 김AA이 이 사건 건물과 관련하여 추가로 사채를 차입할 필요는 없었던 것으로 보이는 사실, 이 사건 부동산 매매대금 45억 원 중 20억 원 상당은 위 HH생명 대출금 20억 원을 변제하는 데 사용되었고, 나머지 매매대금 중 2,263,285,958원[2,374,190,958원 - 1,500만 원 - 95,905,000원(407,000,000원 - 311,095,000원)]이 원고 계좌에 입금되었으나 원고가 위 2,263,285,958원을 원고나 김AA이 차입한 사채를 변제하는데 사용하였다는 점에 관 한 자료는 없는 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는바, 위 인정사실에서 비추어 보면, 앞에서 인 정한 사실만으로는 원고가 이 사건 각서금 14억 100만 원을 변제받기 위하여 위 1,369,001,958원을 송금받았다고 보기에는 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

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