국세환급금 등 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Costs incurred by participation in a lawsuit from among the costs of lawsuit after an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the
[In full view of the Defendant’s assertion and the evidence submitted by the court, it is reasonable to find and determine the first instance court’s finding of facts. The Defendant continues to present in this court that “The actual payer of the gift tax of this case should be deemed B, since the resident registration number of B, who is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the gift tax of this case, is indicated in the column of the payer number on the receipt of payment of the gift tax of this case (Evidence A3).” However, the Defendant presented a tax notice stating the Plaintiff’s name (including his agent or the deceased) and paid the gift tax, and stated that “A return” is indicated in the receipt of payment issued in the future of
As long as the gift tax was received, it cannot be deemed as the actual payer of the gift tax of this case solely on the ground that the front portion of the resident registration number B in the receipt number column is stated (the Defendant also holds that the gift tax of this case was paid as a check withdrawn from the third party’s account. However, as long as the gift tax was paid and the receipt was issued in the future of the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the actual payer of the gift tax of this case, regardless of whose account the source of the gift tax was paid, is the Plaintiff.
[2] The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
On August 3, 2018, this court’s notice of lawsuit was served on the Defendant’s Intervenor on the basis of the Defendant’s filing of the Defendant’s motion for notice of lawsuit, and the Defendant’s Intervenor submitted the application for intervention in the trial on September 6, 2018, which was after the closing of argument in this court, to each of the instant courts, but the application for resumption of pleading on September 7, 2018 was submitted. However, there was no particular reason for resumption of pleading.