Seocho 2015 Schedules2406 (Law No. 1350, 2015)

Since the contract of gift was rescinded by the deadline, it constitutes a case where the donated property was returned by the deadline for reporting gift tax.

Even if the transfer registration of ownership is not cancelled, it is merely due to the relationship between the third party on the registry and the provisional disposition right holder on the registry, and it does not affect the return of land ownership due to the cancellation of the gift contract between the donor and the donee. Therefore, the case where donated property is returned by the due

Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

2015Guhap7681 Revocation of the imposition and refusal of correction of gift tax

Section AA

O Head of tax office

January 22, 2016

March 4, 2016

1. The disposition imposing OOO on the Plaintiff on April 21, 2015 and the disposition rejecting the correction of the gift tax as of January 5, 2015 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff received 2,645/2,645 shares of O-O-O-O 1,32.5 shares (hereinafter “instant land”) from O-O-O-O-O-O 1,32.5 shares (hereinafter “instant donation”) from O-O-dong O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 1, 2013 (O-O-O registry office No. 47173, Nov. 1, 2013; hereinafter “instant registration of ownership”). On January 31, 2014, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW OO-O-O of the gift tax.

B. On December 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the return of the gift tax on the ground that the instant land was returned by the deadline for filing the gift tax return, but the Defendant rejected the claim on January 5, 2015 (hereinafter “instant refusal disposition”).

C. On April 21, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that on March 31, 2006, when the Plaintiff reported the gift tax of the instant land, the Plaintiff omitted a report on the aggregate of the value of the land and the value of the donated property made by PCC, its mother, and determined and notified the OOO of the gift tax of the gift on October 30, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition for imposition”), and “the instant disposition for refusal and disposition for imposition” collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1, all pleadings

Purport

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) After the Plaintiff’s donation of the instant land, the Plaintiff: (a) is the creditor of ChoB; (b) Y on November 27, 2013; and Y on December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the provisional disposition on the instant land by having the right to claim restitution due to the revocation of fraudulent act as the right to be preserved.

2) On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant gift agreement and agreed with the ChoB to cancel the instant registration of transfer of ownership. On the same day, the Plaintiff applied for the registration of cancellation of the ownership transfer on the same day, but the OO district court rendered a decision of rejection on January 10, 2014 on the ground that the consent of the provisional injunction was omitted.

3) Meanwhile, on December 9, 2013, the ChoB filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures due to the failure of clothes manufacturing and sale business (O district court 2013 OOO). On January 16, 2014, the rehabilitation procedures commenced, and the ChoB filed a claim for denial of the cause of the instant transfer registration with respect to the ChoB on March 6, 2014, and the decision was made on April 4, 2014 to implement the procedure for the refusal registration, and on April 21, 2014, the denial of the cause of the instant transfer registration was registered (O district court OOOOOO on April 21, 2014).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 7 through 10, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter "the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that "where the donated property (5) is returned by the deadline for filing a return under Article 68 pursuant to an agreement between the parties, it shall be deemed that there was no donation from the beginning." Article 68(1) of the same Act provides that "within three months from the last day of the month to which the date of receiving the donation belongs, the taxable value and tax base of the gift tax shall be reported within three months from the end of the month to which the date of receiving the donation belongs." Article 31(4) of the same Act provides that "The foregoing provision is based on the fact that the tax obligation already established is not affected by the rescission of the agreement on the gift contract, but only within the deadline for filing the return of the gift tax for the benefit of taxpayers, the provision that recognizes the retroactive effect of cancelling the agreement exceptionally (see Constitutional Court Order 97Hun-

2) According to the facts found earlier, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant gift agreement from October 31, 2013, which was the end of the month to which the instant donation date belongs, on January 9, 2014, which was within three months from the end of the month to which the instant donation date belongs, and thereby, the ownership of the instant land naturally returned to ChoB (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2968, Jul. 27, 1982). Accordingly, the instant land constitutes a case where the gift tax return was made within the deadline for filing the gift tax.

Even if the registration of ownership transfer of this case was not cancelled, it is only due to the relationship with the provisional disposition right holder, who is the third party on the register, and it does not affect the return of land ownership due to the cancellation of the gift contract between ChoB and the plaintiff.

3) Therefore, even though it is deemed that there was no gift of this case from the beginning, the rejection disposition and disposition of this case, which were issued on different premise, are unlawful.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.