증여받은 것으로 추정되는 자금과 별도의 취득자금 출처를 증명하지 못하여 어머니로부터 자금을 증여받은 것으로 본 처분은 적법함[국승]
Seoul High Court-2015-Nu71602 ( November 23, 2016)
Seocho 2014west 2263 (Law No. 29, 2014)
It is legitimate that this disposition is deemed to have been donated by the mother because it did not prove the source of the funds assumed to have been donated and the source of the funds.
In light of occupation, age, income, property status, etc., it is difficult to recognize that the mother acquired the instant claim with its own ability, and the mother is deemed to have had the ability to donate property, and the mother did not prove the presumed donation by the mother and the source of the acquisition fund, which was the source of the instant claim acquisition fund, was deemed to have received a donation from the mother to the amount of the instant bearer bonds
Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Property Acquisition Funds, etc.)
2017Du31002 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
IsaA
BB Director of the Tax Office
Seoul High Court Decision 2015Nu71602 Decided November 23, 2016
1, 2017.05
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the instant disposition, which determined and notified gift tax, was lawful on the ground that the Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 45 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828, Dec. 31, 2007) on the ground that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim with its own financial capacity in view of his occupation, age, income, property status, etc., and that there was re-refluence for the Plaintiff to donate the property; and that the Plaintiff failed to prove the source of the instant claim acquisition fund, separate from the funds presumed to have been donated by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the additional tax part of the instant disposition was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s repayment of the instant bearer claim, which is the source of the instant claim acquisition fund, was donated to the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant claim,
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on penalty tax under Article 45(1) of the said Act and the tax law, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, thereby misunderstanding the facts against logical and empirical rules.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.