District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-1446 (2016.05)

The key issue amount is whether the plaintiff's proposal is not a prior gift property.

(1) The claim is difficult to accept in light of the following: (a) it is difficult to objectively verify a loan for consumption because it does not appear that the principal is repaid; (b) it is difficult to recognize the claim that the loan for consumption is a loan; and (c) it is difficult to deem the loan B as a joint investment with the decedent with a written statement of the branch and written confirmation of the local residents.

Article 2 (Definitions) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2016Nu57184 and revocation of disposition to impose gift tax and inheritance tax

MaO et al. five persons

OO Head of the tax office and two others

December 01, 201

December 15, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The imposition of ○○○○○○○ upon the appointed person on June 2, 2014 by Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ on the part of the appointed person on June 2, 2014, the imposition of ○○○○○○○○○○ upon the appointed person on June 2, 2014, and the imposition of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ upon the designated person on June 1, 2014 by Defendant ○○○○○○○ on the part of the designated person (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”)

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, and it is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of some contents. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Parts to be removed or added.

○ The 2nd to 17th of the judgment of the first instance court shall be followed as follows.

A. The designated parties including the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) were children of the deceased ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”). As the decedent died on February 4, 2012 and inherited the property of the inheritee, on August 27, 2012, the decedent reported the taxable value of the inheritance tax to ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”).

B. As a result of an inheritance tax investigation conducted on April 1, 2014, ○○○○○○○ was withdrawn from the agricultural bank account in the name of the decedent on June 23, 2010, and among which, ○○○○○○○○○ was decided to ○○○○○○, the ○○○○○○○○○ was paid to the Appoint○○○, the Appoint○○○○○○, and the ○○○○○○○○ was paid to the Appoint○○○○, respectively, and determined that all of them was donated property. Accordingly, on June 1, 2014, the head of the ○○○○○○○ Tax Office imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff, etc. on June 23, 2014 by adding the above prior donated property to the taxable value of the inheritance tax reported by the Plaintiff, etc., and the head of the ○○○ Tax Office imposed the gift tax on the Appoint○○○ on June 22, 2014.

Pursuant to the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Nos. 10 and 11 of A" to 8 of the first sentence shall be followed as follows.

Each of the items of evidence Nos. 1 through 15 alone is insufficient to deem that the amount of Nos. 1 and 2 issues was paid to the designated parties rather than the gift, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, in full view of the following circumstances known through the overall purport of the statement and pleading Nos. 10, 11, 11, and 1, the gift tax is imposed on the designated parties by deeming that the amount of Nos. 1 and 2 issues was paid to the designated parties as a prior donation, and each of the dispositions of this case against which the inheritance tax was imposed, including the taxable value

○ The following shall be added to the fourth sentence below the judgment of the first instance court.

④ Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the imposition of ○○○○○○○○○○ upon Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ by borrowing the first issue amount from the inheritee and paying it as a part of the lease deposit upon entering into a lease agreement with the inheritee. However, the Plaintiff presented evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as supporting the allegation that the Appoint○○○○○○ was paid as the first issue amount, which is premised on the premise that the Appoint○○○○○○ was paid as the first issue amount, and that this part of the argument inconsistent with this is not acceptable (the first issue amount is regarded as the claim that ○○○○○○○○ borrowed the first issue amount from the inheritee, and then transferred it to ○○○○○’s account, his wife’s wife’s wife, etc.).

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.