경험칙에 비추어 과세요건사실이 추정되는 경우 그 부과처분은 적법함[국승]
Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Guhap-54674 ( December 24, 2015)
If the facts of taxation requirement are presumed in light of the empirical rule, the disposition of taxation is legitimate.
The burden of proving the existence of the tax-exempt fact is against the tax authority, but if the facts alleged in the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule were revealed in the litigation process, it cannot be deemed an illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirement with respect to the tax imposing disposition, unless it proves such circumstances in the form of claiming the circumstances not subject to the empirical rule.
Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
2015Nu64802 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
AA
The director of the tax office
May 12, 2016
March 23, 2016
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The gift tax attributed to the Plaintiff in the year 2008, rendered by the Defendant on May 12, 2014
Each disposition of imposition of KRW 7,971,480 and KRW 9,058,50 shall be revoked.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasoning of this court's decision is that "No. 4th 13th 13th 13th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 400
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
The plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as economic circumstances make it difficult for the plaintiff to make it difficult, 49 million won borrowed from arqs is a loan, arqs that the plaintiff borrowed from ar to e, 49 million won and 50 million won which the plaintiff received from e to the account.
According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 11 through 13 submitted by the plaintiff at the trial of the party, the fact that the plaintiff remitted 30 million won to ssss, who are the spouse of the largest leakage orqq on December 10, 2009. However, the above materials alone cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff remitted ss to ss for the repayment of the borrowed amount, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. In light of the fact that the plaintiff submitted the above argument that there is no argument about the review of the legality prior to taxation, the tax review stage, and the trial stage of the first instance court, etc., and the submission of relevant materials, it is difficult to believe the plaintiff's above argument. Accordingly, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion
Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.