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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 00,000,000 on the Plaintiff on December 3, 2013 and KRW 000,000,000 on the gift tax for the year 2010 and the inheritance tax for the year 2012 shall be revoked.

A.******* Company (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) is a company whose business is clothing, miscellaneous, food bankruptcy wholesale business, building leasing business, etc., and the Plaintiff is in office as the representative director of the instant company from September 10, 1997 to the date of September 5, 2008. The Plaintiff’s first birth Kim* is in office as internal director, second birth Kim* is in company director, second birth Kim* is in office as the auditor, and the Plaintiff’s father, Kim &&&&&(hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”) was in office as the auditor of the instant company from September 10, 1997 to March 5, 2008.

B. The decedent died on June 25, 2012, and the heirs, including the Plaintiff, on December 31, 2012

Inheritance Tax was reported and paid.

(C) Upon examining inheritance tax from July 2013 to September 2013, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed that, on April 15, 2010, a check (7 copies of KRW 100 million) issued by the decedent to the issuing bank account of the decedent at the issuing bank account of the decedent (hereinafter “the instant money”) was deposited into the Plaintiff’s new bank account on the same day, and on December 3, 2013, the decedent deemed that the decedent was donated the instant money in advance to the Plaintiff, and on December 3, 2013, the decedent determined and notified KRW 00,000,000,000 as gift tax for the year 200,000 and inheritance tax for the year 200,000,000 for the inheritance tax for the year 2012 (hereinafter “the instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on January 24, 2014.

The Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's claim on September 2, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number if there is a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant money is paid to the Plaintiff by Kim*, who is in charge of the financial management of the instant company, to repay the Plaintiff’s debts, and Kim*’s debt details against the Plaintiff are as follows.

1) KRW 00,000,000, which is useful from the instant company and appropriated as the provisional payment to the Plaintiff:

** without the plaintiff's consent, the company's funds of this case were useful and processed as provisional payments to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the company's balance of provisional payments as of the end of the 2009 business year of this case was KRW 00,000,000 including the above amount in the next year, and was appropriated as provisional payments to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff became aware of this fact around 2009, dispute between Kim* and * began with the plaintiff as he came to know of this fact. At the time, the plaintiff needs to pay money to make an investment in the business, the plaintiff in the book** because there was a need to correct the debtor as Kim*, then Kim** requested the plaintiff to return the money with the provisional payments.

2) The purchase price of the Plaintiff’s land is KRW 00,00,000: Kim* on June 4, 2005, Kim* deposited in the account of the instant company and did not return to the Plaintiff after depositing the purchase price of the Plaintiff’s land in the account of the instant company ** * * * * 1256 square meters, * 1* * 1* * 4529 square meters (in combination of 4529 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “family land”) on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 00,00,000 in total with the purchase price on June 4, 2005 and June 8, 2005.

3) Total amount of the lease deposit for the apartment owned by the Plaintiff KRW 000,000,000

A) On September 14, 2007, Kim* entered into a lease agreement with an existing lessee on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff as to Seoul**Gu** 217 Dong 217* 214 Dong 405 (hereinafter referred to as "* apartment") owned by the Plaintiff on September 14, 2007. The lease deposit was increased from KRW 00,000,000 to KRW 00,000,000, but did not deliver it to the Plaintiff.

B) On December 11, 2006, Kim* entered into a lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff as to Seoul**Gu* 141 Dong** 104 Dong 205 (hereinafter referred to as the “Dong”) on behalf of the Plaintiff, and received KRW 00,000,00 from the lessee, but did not deliver it to the Plaintiff.

C) On November 29, 2008, Kim* entered into a lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff as to Seoul**Gu*************************213 Dong 3402 (hereinafter referred to as “multi-family”) on behalf of the lessee, and received KRW 00,000,000 from the lessee, but did not deliver it to the Plaintiff.

4) As above, Kim* KRW 000,000,000 (= KRW 000,000,000 + KRW 00,000,000) for the Plaintiff

A +00,000,000 won was owed to the Defendant’s account held in the name of the decedent on April 15, 2010, and the Plaintiff tried to file a criminal complaint or lawsuit. However, according to the Defendant’s arbitration, Kim* deposited all the money he had held in the account of the inheritee (as of May 22, 2009, KRW 70,000) and then about one year after the agreement, Kim* returned the money to the Plaintiff and concluded the dispute. Accordingly, Kim** deposited the said money kept in the account under the name of the decedent on April 15, 2010 and deposited the money in the account of the company of this case with the Plaintiff on a total check by withdrawing KRW 00,000,000,000, which was in the corporate account of the company of this case. Accordingly, since the money of this case is not a donation made by the decedent to the Plaintiff, the disposition of this case should be revoked by the Defendant.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Determination

A. As long as the amount of money of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of disposition imposing gift tax is revealed to have been deposited by the account in the taxpayer’s name, the amount is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there are special circumstances, such as that deposit to the account in the taxpayer’s name is made for other purpose than gift, it shall be deemed that the taxpayer needs to prove it (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001; 9Du4082, Oct.

10. See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6290.

B. Based on the above legal principles, according to the statement of No. 1-2 of the certificate No. 1-2 of this case, it is recognized that a check equivalent to the amount of this case was issued in a deposit account (00-000-0000) in the name of the decedent and was deposited into the account in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, since the amount of this case is presumed to have been donated from the decedent to the plaintiff, the plaintiff must prove that the amount of this case was deposited for the purpose of repayment to the plaintiff, not Kim*.

C. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s evidence alone submitted by itself was made for the purpose of paying the instant money Kim*’s obligation, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

1) Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, Kim* around 2009 (2009) came to know of useful facts by deducting the company’s funds of KRW 00 billion and demanded the return thereof. Kim** refused to pay the amount to the Plaintiff. At the time, there was no dispute about the Plaintiff’s refusal to pay the amount to the Plaintiff. At the same time, the Plaintiff decided to borrow the amount from the company without confirmation of the due date of payment or the accurate amount of the provisional payment exceeding KRW 00 million. In such a situation, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff received the return from the Kim*, which is the aforementioned dispute, without confirmation of the due date of payment or the accurate amount of the provisional payment. Meanwhile, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 00 million to the decedent’s account without any settlement or agreement on the total amount of the debt. Meanwhile, Kim* In addition, in the situation where the dispute occurred, it is difficult to understand that the Plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 100 million to the above account without any agreement or any material.

2) In the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff alleged that Kim* has deposited KRW 00,000,00 in the account under the name of the inheritee on May 22, 2009 following the inheritee’s arbitration. However, in the first explanation regarding the Defendant’s tax investigation, the account under the above decedent’s name was jointly managed by the inheritee and the Plaintiff, and*** KRW 00,000,000 in the purchase price of land *** apartment house ** KRW 000,000 in the purchase price of land ** apartment house ** KRW 100,000 in the increase of apartment deposit ** KRW 100,000 in the aggregate of KRW 1,50,000 in the instant case’s health deposit account as well as KRW 1,500,000 in the aggregate of KRW 1,500,000 in the instant case’s wage deposit with the representative director and the Plaintiff as well as KRW 1,500,0000 in the instant case’s payment.

3) In addition, the plaintiff did not at all assert the fact that the payment of the instant money was Kim*'s debt repayment. In the second explanatory materials, the plaintiff and Kim* borrowed a sum of KRW 00,000 from February 11, 2003 to November 18, 2005, and received payment in succession from Kim**, and the plaintiff argued that there is no amount of donation or loan to Kim*. However, in the subsequent written request for pre-assessment review, the plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 00,000,000 among the instant money was disposed of as provisional payment against the plaintiff ***, while 230,000,000,000 won was embezzled and disposed of as provisional payment against the plaintiff, the plaintiff argued that the lawsuit was reversed as above.

4)**** under the sales contract (Evidence No. 12) for the land of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s agent signed and sealed the name and seal of the inheritee. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that Kim* entered into a contract on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff and used the name of the inheritee. However, it is difficult to easily understand that the Plaintiff used the name of the inheritee only under the above sales contract** in the case of entering into an apartment or a* apartment lease contract on behalf of the Plaintiff. In addition, in a preparatory document dated March 27, 2015 as a certified judicial scrivener, the above sales contract was executed by the decedent on behalf of the decedent, but the sales price was managed by Kim**, and only because the amount equivalent to the sales price of the above land was deposited into the account of the instant company at that time, Kim* is not liable for the Plaintiff’s debt corresponding to the sales price.

5)**** in relation to a lease agreement for an apartment, the plaintiff alleged that Kim* entered into a lease agreement on behalf of the plaintiff, and received KRW 00,000,000 from the lessee, but the plaintiff's representative under the lease agreement is Kim***'s signature and seal is affixed to the plaintiff's representative, and the special agreement merely states that "the contract is in force on behalf of the owner.**************-000**********) on behalf of the owner, and there is no other evidence proving that the contract was concluded on behalf of the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff did not have any deposit account of the original plaintiff, and the plaintiff argued that the remainder of the lease deposit and the long-term repair appropriations were not returned to the plaintiff?* The above payment was not made to the plaintiff before the expiration of the lease agreement**00 billion won as long as the payment was made by the plaintiff's account ** the payment of the balance is not made to the plaintiff* there is no possibility of deposit in the above 0000 billion.

6) On April 15, 2010, an amount of KRW 00 million was withdrawn from the instant company’s account, but inasmuch as a check equivalent to the instant amount was issued with the name of the decedent from the deposit account (00-000-0000) in the name of the decedent as the client for the issuance of the check was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account on the same day, the check was deposited in the Plaintiff’s name, the amount of KRW 00 million included in the instant amount, and from the decedent, the Plaintiff.

In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the above amount was donated ( even if the source of the above amount was the company's account, there is no particular evidence as to the grounds used to repay the company's debt to the plaintiff Kim* as alleged by the plaintiff, and in this respect, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be recognized).

5. Conclusion

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