Seoul Central District Court-2017-Gohap-54656 ( April 26, 2018)

The holder of the claim for refund shall be the person who actually paid the tax amount.

Where the actual payer of the gift tax of this case coincides with the intent of the agency of the national treasury to whom the tax was paid, it shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account objective data, including a payment receipt, and all the circumstances at the time of the payment of the gift tax of this case, if such intent cannot be determined according to the contents of the intent

National Tax Collection Act

2018Na2023917 Claims for National Tax Refund, etc.

LAA

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gahap546656 Decided April 26, 2018

August 16, 2018

September 20, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The Intervenor joining the Defendant bears the costs of participation in the costs of lawsuit after the appeal is filed; and

The remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 512,320,810 won with interest rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is reasonable to find facts and determine the first instance court even if all the defendant's arguments and the evidence presented are reviewed. The defendant continues to present this court as the resident registration number of the largest BB, who is jointly and severally liable for the payment of the gift tax of this case, stated that the actual payer of the gift tax of this case should be the largestB. However, although the plaintiff (including his agent or person) presented a tax notice (Article 2-1) stating the name of the plaintiff, and received a payment receipt (Article 420) issued in the future of the plaintiff (Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act) after paying the gift tax, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff is the actual payer of the gift tax of this case, regardless of the fact that the most BB resident registration number was stated in the bill's resident registration number column (Article 3). However, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is the actual payer of the gift tax of this case.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition (the notice of lawsuit by this court based on the defendant's motion for notification of lawsuit was served on the defendant's assistant intervenor on August 3, 2018, and the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's motion for intervention on September 6, 2018, which is after the closure of argument in this court, submitted to each court, and on September 7, 2018, the defendant's motion for resumption of argument was submitted to each of these courts, but there was no particular reason for resumption of argument in this case, and it is not recognized that the resumption of argument in this case