부동산 매도대금을 증여받은 것으로 보아 과세한 처분의 당부[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap48869 ( December 22, 2010)
propriety of the disposition imposed by deeming that the real estate sale price was donated;
(1) Since part of the sales price of real estate owned by her husband was transferred to the Plaintiff’s deposit account, it is reasonable to deem that her husband donated to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
2011Nu4963 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
The AA
The Director of the Pacific District Office
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap48869 Decided December 22, 2010
August 19, 2011
October 17, 2011
1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be lodged.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 457,489,590 shall be revoked by the Defendant for the Plaintiff, such as the entry in the column for correction tax amount in the attached list of the first instance judgment.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons why this Court shall be stated in this judgment, and the following (Paragraph 2) shall be cited in the same manner as the reasons stated in the judgment of the first instance except for adding (Paragraph 3) the judgment on new arguments that the plaintiff has raised in the trial of the first instance:
2. Parts in height:
Parts 3, 4, 10, 6, 17, 17, 3, 9, 12, 31,095, and 00, 31,095, and 950, respectively, of Parts 3, 4, 10, 6, 17, 8, 312, 10, 10, 14, 31,095, and 950, 1,0050 ( = 15,000,000 + 95,900, 904, 050 + 894,285,000), 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 311,05, and 14, 10, 10, 10, 311,095, 18, 18, 2625, 263, 258, 2500.
3. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
The Plaintiff’s lease deposit amount to be received from the buyer of the instant building by KimCC, which was transferred to the Plaintiff on June 2, 2005, KRW 311,095,95,950 (the Plaintiff alleged to be KRW 311,095,00, which appears to be erroneous) is the remainder of the lease deposit amount that the Plaintiff had to receive from the buyer of the instant building. The Plaintiff borrowed the above money from KimCC at the time of study and received from the Plaintiff on behalf of KimCC. The said money was leased to the Plaintiff by KimCC (the money was used for the Plaintiff’s husband KimD) and the principal and interest 1,275,000,000, and KRW 1507,000,000,000, and KRW 1500,000,000, and KRW 300,000,000, which were leased from the previous KimCC, and the Defendant should be excluded from the above sales contract for the Plaintiff and the above 3150,5,0,0.
B. Determination
First of all, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part continues to change the content of the instant disposition in the objection phase, the procedure for the trial at the Tax Tribunal, and the procedure for the first instance trial and the appellate trial. Furthermore, in this case, the Plaintiff presented a large amount of money transaction relationship between KimD and KimCC, a family company, and the Plaintiff’s 10-year financial data, asserting that there was a large amount of money transaction relationship between her husband and her husband, and did not submit basic transactional cause documents, such as loan certificates, and KimCC did not submit objective materials to the extent that her KimCC lent a large amount of money to her parents and had a considerable occupation or income source to the extent that she would bear a deposit for lease. As the judgment of the first instance court properly held, as seen above, it appears that the Plaintiff did not have any other sufficient means to recognize the Plaintiff’s transfer of money from the first instance court to the 30th of 197. Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff did not appear to have received a new lease deposit and the above 150-year amount from the Plaintiff.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.