Appellate-2015 father-1672

The disposition imposing gift tax by deeming that the father of the Plaintiff subrogated for the Plaintiff’s obligation is legitimate.

The Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff’s land owned by his father as a collateral while borrowing the loan from the financial institution under his own name, and the relevant loan was repaid with compensation for consultation on the secured land. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff appears to have received a donation from his father, the disposition imposing gift tax on the claimant is justifiable.

Gift pursuant to Article 36 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

2015Guhap22784 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

loan amount of KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000

It is insufficient to recognize that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, including the above amount.

The disposition of this case, which is deemed to be subject to gift tax, is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above disposition is lawful.

The argument is without merit.

1. The Court shall be present at this Court as a witness, and “Irrrre, on October 200, 200, below the Dongjak.”

000 00 billion won (in cash, KRW 00 billion, KRW 000,000) from B at the public parking lot of 000 -

(2) At the time of the preparation of the loan certificate, the loan certificate was drawn up without setting any terms and conditions.

Although the testimony was made to the effect that it is not in custody at present, it was not made;

The basis for supporting was not presented.

② Moreover, even if the above statement is based on the party’s statement, the circumstances and method of giving and receiving money is very important.

A large amount of loan that belongs to an exceptional case, in particular reaches KRW 00 million, and the time when the loan is distributed and repaid.

It is also difficult to understand that investment was made without setting any conditions such as that.

3. At the time, B appears to have been holding a considerable financial power, and the Plaintiff appears to have been holding a financial power.

the loan of this case under the name of the Plaintiff is not given to the Plaintiff.

(c)

4. Investment of KRW 100,000,000,000 in research funds, even if the HB had the meaning of the white loan business.

(1) The loan of this case shall not be deemed to have been paid in the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,00

It is difficult to readily conclude it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.

AAA

00. Head of tax office

November 6, 2015

December 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on October 0, 2015 by the former Cheong-gu Defendant

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation of the Plaintiff’s HaakB as of October 0, 2013 to October 00, 2014, the Director of the Regional Tax Office: (a) confirmed the fact that HB subrogated the Plaintiff’s national bank’s debt amounting to KRW 0,000,000 on October 0, 2003; and (b) confirmed the fact that the Plaintiff returned KRW 00,000,000 to HB on October 0, 2003; and (c) notified the Defendant of the gift tax assessment data regarding the gift tax deeming that HB was a donation to the Plaintiff.

B. Accordingly, on October 00, 2015, the Defendant imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000,000 (including additional tax) of the gift tax on October 0, 2003 (hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal upon its objection, but was dismissed on October 0, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From October 0, 200 to October 00, 2001, HB borrowed a total of KRW 0,000,000,000 from a national bank as the debtor for three times from the national bank (hereinafter referred to as "the loan of this case"), and paid KRW 00,000 among them as the investment funds for the development of the YA to PCC, which was attending the same church as at the time of October 2000, and regularCC returned KRW 00,000,000 out of the above investment funds to HB on October 00, 2009.

However, the Defendant’s disposal of KRW 00,000,000,000, after deducting only KRW 000,000,000,000 returned by the Plaintiff from KRW 0,000,00 of the subrogated payment of the above borrowed amount from KRW 00,00,00,00 as the tax base amount of gift tax. However, the Defendant should also deduct the investment amount which is verified to have been actually used by HB as above from the gift tax base amount of gift tax.

B. Relevant statutes

In cases where a creditor is exempted from a debt, or a third party is taken over or repaid a debt from a creditor under Article 36 (Gifts, etc.) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the amount equivalent to the profits from such exemption, acceptance, or repayment (where a compensation amount has been paid, the amount less such compensation amount) shall be deemed the value of donated property of the person who has

C. Determination

In general, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirement in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing tax should be borne by the imposing authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirement in light of the empirical rule are presumed in the course of a specific lawsuit, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent tax disposition was illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirement unless the pertinent facts are proven to be eligible for application of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 2007). In this case, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff’s obligation with the compensation for expropriation of the leased real estate, and thus, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the gift which serves as the requirement for imposing gift tax is presumed to be a gift and that B used 00 million won out of the instant loan amount as the investment amount to Y. Therefore, such special circumstance should be proved by the Plaintiff.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the aforementioned evidence and the witness’s testimony at the regularCC.