Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap1815 (Law No. 13, 2012)

National Tax Service Review Income 201-0052

Where it is confirmed as property directly donated, it shall not be presumed as gift.

(1) In order to reverse the presumption of donation, the taxpayer should prove the source of the funds to acquire the property, and the taxpayer should prove that the funds were used as the funds to acquire the property in question or that the property acquired is the property under title trust. However, the gift tax is legitimate due to lack of proof, and the portion verified as the property directly donated cannot be presumed as the donation.

2012Nu24759 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

KimA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap1815 decided July 13, 2012

January 17, 2013

February 7, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's disposition of gift tax imposition on May 1, 201 as stated in the "amount of tax to be revoked" column in the "amount of tax to be revoked" column in the "amount of tax to be revoked."

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's ruling is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is based on Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Defendant calculated the value of donated property on the instant real estate No. 1 as KRW 000 and imposed gift tax. However, as the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate No. 1 to KimB, received the said deposit from KimB, and used it for the acquisition fund of the instant real estate No. 1, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the said deposit to the head KimB. Therefore, the said KRW 000 should be deducted from the value of donated property on the instant real estate No. 1. Inasmuch as the said deposit should be deducted from the value of donated property on the instant real estate No. 1, the value of donated property on the instant real estate No. 1 should be calculated as KRW 000 (=00 -00)

2) The Defendant recognized the whole value of the instant 13 real estate (OOB 000, 000, 000, 13) as KRW 000, and calculated KRW 000 as the Plaintiff’s value of the instant 13 real estate as the property donated to the Plaintiff’s property regarding the instant 13 real estate after deducting the amount of the secured debt, etc. established as to the entire real estate of the instant 13 real estate from the point of time, and the remainder amount calculated as KRW 4/10 of the Plaintiff’s share as the property donated to the instant 13 real estate. However, the entire value of the instant 13 real estate is KRW 00,000, and is only KRW 00 if

B. Determination

1) As to the Plaintiff’s first argument

In full view of the statements in evidence No. 22-1 through No. 3, and the whole purport of the pleadings, and on November 3, 2005, the fact that the lease contract (Evidence No. 22-1) was made in the contents that the Plaintiff decided to lease the real estate No. 1 to KimB for 24 months, and that the Plaintiff and the seller of the real estate No. 1 were transferred 000 won in total from the No. 18, Oct. 18, 2005 to Feb. 3, 2006, the Plaintiff and the seller of the real estate No. 1 were transferred from the No. 22-3, and the fact that the Plaintiff did not have any other obligation to receive the deposit from KimB, and that the KimCC did not have any other obligation to receive the deposit from the Defendant on Jan. 27, 2011, and that the Plaintiff did not have any other obligation to receive the deposit in the name of the above No. 5B.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the amount of the deposit should be deducted from the value of donated property to the real estate of this case is without merit.

2) As to the second argument of the Plaintiff

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 27-1 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, Eul evidence Nos. 7-1 and Eul evidence Nos. 7-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings, and at the time the plaintiff acquired the real estate No. 13 of this case, the value of the whole real estate at the time of acquiring the real estate of this case can be recognized facts constituting 00, and the disposition of this case calculated the plaintiff's donated property of the real estate No. 13 of this case on the premise that it is legitimate,

3. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.