beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s imposition of each gift tax on February 19, 2013 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked in entirety.
2...
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On June 28, 2006, the Plaintiff leased B apartment 309 Dong 305 (hereinafter “B apartment 305”) in KRW 400 million from the deposit. On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 1 billion from Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the lease deposit amount of KRW 400 million from June 5, 2008 to June 4, 2010.
On February 25, 2010, when the term of lease expires, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C to purchase the instant apartment house with KRW 3 billion, and paid the total amount of KRW 81 million in addition to the down payment, intermediate payment, and remainder pursuant to the above sales contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on March 31, 2010.
B. As a result of the investigation into the place of financing against the Plaintiff, the Defendant: (a) assessed and assessed the Plaintiff on February 19, 2013, the sum of KRW 98,358,840,00,000 on the gift tax (including additional tax) on each of the gift tax (including additional tax) stated in the attached Table on the Plaintiff’s list, as follows: (b) KRW 1 billion from the husband E to KRW 600,000,000 excluding KRW 400,000,000,0000,000 excluding KRW 1 billion,000,0000,000,000,000 won
(hereinafter “instant disposition”). C.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 10, 2013, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on May 27, 2014.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract for the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff’s husband E bears the joint and several liability amounting to KRW 00 million, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer of the apartment of this case was completed in the future of the Plaintiff, but E entered into a lease and sale contract