The instant money is donated not to a loan but to a third party.

Since there are no circumstances to regard the money of this case as a loan, it is received as a gift tax equivalent to the original gift in accordance with the empirical rule.

Article 31 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap10827 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

March 17, 2016

March 31, 2016

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,00,000 against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on December 1, 2014, KRW 00,000,000, KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000, and KRW 00,000, and KRW 00,000,000 against the Appointed for the Appointed for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on December 1, 2014, the Defendant revoked each disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 262,952,970, KRW 970, KRW 200, KRW 00, KRW 00, KRW 00, and KRW 00, KRW 200, KRW 100,000 on each of the grounds of the appeal, and KRW 262,00 on each of the Appointed Party’s claim against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on December 1, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 14, and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. On January 11, 2013, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties donated the land and buildings of the second floor neighborhood living facilities located in 000,000, Seoul, ○○○-gu (○○○○ Dong) (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) from e’s father on January 11, 201, and reported a total of KRW 0,000,000,000,000 on April 30, 2013, as indicated below (as indicated in Table 1).

B. From August 11, 2014 to October 24, 2014, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the source of the payment of gift tax paid by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff (Appointed Party”) (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) from August 11, 2014 to October 24, 2014, and confirmed that each of the amounts listed in Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant money”) in the amount of the gift tax paid was deposited from the account of e, one bank:

C. The Defendant donated the instant key money to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) etc.

On the other hand, on December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) rendered a decision and notification of KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00 to the designated Party on April 30, 2013, respectively (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal on March 3, 2015 against the instant disposition, but was dismissed on June 30, 2015.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff (appointed party)'s assertion

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) donated the instant key money from his father Lee-e to his father.

In addition, it was borrowed to pay gift tax. The first Plaintiff (Appointed Party) acquired the ownership of the instant real estate after acquiring the right of the instant real estate, and intended to pay gift tax by executing additional loans in the name of his father and executing the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) refused to accept the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and did not accept the obligation, etc. on the ground that the Plaintiff’s credit rating was low, and the instant real estate continues to have been leased since November 2012. Since the instant real estate was also composed mainly of real estate, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) et al. borrowed money from his father who was inevitably holding surplus funds at the time. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) et al. received the gift of the instant issue amount was unlawful.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff (Appointed) was the donor at the time of paying the gift tax.

If the amount equivalent to the gift tax was withdrawn from the account of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the e-mail were offered to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), it is highly probable that this e-e has donated the amount equivalent to the gift tax to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) according to the empirical rule. Furthermore, according to the evidence Nos. 5 and 7, even if the value of the real estate in this case’s collateral is deducted from the amount of KRW 0 billion, it is recognized that the collateral value for the additional loan of KRW 0 billion remains sufficiently, and such loan did not have been made. According to the evidence No. 6 of this case’s evidence No. 200, May 30, 2013, and April 30, 2014, and June 30, 2014, the principal and interest No. 4000, May 30, 2014, and June 4, 2014, the Plaintiff’s interest and interest No. 50, etc. were paid to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and this case’s e.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the above loan certificate is genuine because this e has no trace of taking measures to secure its repayment. Furthermore, according to the evidence No. 15 of this case’s real estate, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) et al. has no evidence to verify that it has been used for the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan on four occasions after the donation of the real estate of this case (the maximum debt amount on July 1, 2013, the maximum debt amount on September 1, 2013, the maximum debt amount on September 27, 2013, the maximum debt amount on September 27, 2000, the maximum debt amount on April 8, 2014, the maximum debt amount on April 8, 2014, and the lease money on a deposit basis,00,000,000,000 won on September 5, 2014).

In full view of all these circumstances, the key issue of this case is the interest of the plaintiff (appointed party) etc.

It is reasonable to see that a donation is not made from a loan, and the disposition of this case to the same effect is lawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.