Seoul Administrative Court-2015-Gu Partnership-58041 ( December 11, 2015)

Seocho 2014west 1619 ( December 23, 2014)

Any disposition that presumed that the funds for acquiring property were donated to a lineal descendant having re-existent effect is justifiable;

(As with the judgment of the court of first instance, if a person without a certain occupation or income does not have a site for financing the relevant property, and his lineal ascendant or spouse, etc. has the ability to give a donation, it is reasonable to presume that the acquisition fund was given by the person having the ability to receive the donation from the person having the ability to do so.

Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Presumption of Donation of Property Acquisition Funds

2016Nu31601 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Park ○

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap58041 decided December 11, 2015

August 17, 2016

September 21, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each imposition of KRW 132,050,70 and KRW 449,817,300 (including each additional tax) of the gift tax imposed on the Plaintiff on December 5, 2013 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except that the pertinent matter in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed as follows. Thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The date and time column No. 3 in the table of ○ 3 shall be set up as " October 8, 1994", and the temporary column of No. 7 shall be set up as " October 30, 2009".

Then, "The plaintiff argued that there was 7 pages 5,00,000,000 won of the total amount of each financial account during the period from the purchase of the above KKdong apartment on October 23, 2009 to the acquisition of real estate on August 25, 201, the plaintiff had sufficient funds to acquire one real estate since the total amount of each financial account over the period from the purchase of the above KKdong apartment to the acquisition of real estate on August 25, 201. However, the plaintiff added "It is difficult to accept the above assertion on the ground that there was a large number of overlapping amounts in light of the opening date and termination date of each account as shown in the evidence A No. 14, and there was a lot of overlapping amount in view of the number of accounts as shown

○ 5. 8. The term “a lineal ascendant” is changed into “a lineal descendant”.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.