The key issue amount of this case is not the repayment of existing debts, but the advance donation amount.

The Plaintiff loaned KRW 200 million to the inheritee and repaid the loan amount of the issue amount of this case

there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge that it has been received, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap62237 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Mao

o Head of the tax office

June 19, 2013

August 28, 2013

1. All of the Plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. 2. Costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The defendant against the plaintiff of Gooooo,oo,o.o.o., ooo on the gift of Goooo.o.o.o.

Donation to the donation of oo, oooo, oooo, oo.o.o. o. o. o. o. o. o. Donation

In case of donation by Hoo, Hoo,oo, o.o.o. o. o. o,oo. o. o. o. o. o.

Imposition of gift tax on ooo, ooo, oo. o. o. o. o. o. o.o. o. ooo on gift, respectively.

All disposition shall be revoked.

1. The process of the instant disposition

A. From May 201 to September 201, the day before his father’s death, the Plaintiff was paid oowon (Oowon +Ooowon) in aggregate of the amount of check or withdrawals issued from the account of Ma or the borrowed name account of Maa as indicated below between May 201 and September 201.

B. Upon the death of o.o., the defendant judged the above (1) through (6) as a prior donation, o.o. on 2013, the defendant received the above (1) through (3) o.o., 2010, 1) o.o., 2010 as gift tax on o.o.o., 2010, 2) o.o., 3, 2010 as gift tax on o.o., 3, 2010 as gift tax on o., 2010, 1) o., 3, 2010 to 3, 2010 to o. 3, 2010 to o. 2, 2010 to o. 3, 2010 to o. 2, 2010 to o. 3, 2010 to o. 3, 2010 to o.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

around March 209, the inheritee was in the divorce and the division of property with wife Kimb, and around that time, the inheritee demanded that the Plaintiff lend KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, on March 6, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the inheritee, and the inheritee paid KRW 00 million to Kimb by April 10, 2009 in the lawsuit of divorce, etc. on March 27, 2009, the conciliation was concluded that the inheritee paid KRW 200 million to the inheritee as consolation money and the division of property by April 10, 209. The Plaintiff loaned the said money, while setting up a collateral security on the real estate owned by the inheritee, the Plaintiff received a strong objection from each other, and thereafter, the Plaintiff is able to avoid disputes between families.

Around May 2009, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled. The Plaintiff had a loan claim of KRW 200 million against the decedent, and the Plaintiff received the instant key amount under the name of principal and interest repayment. As such, the disposition imposing a gift tax on the said money is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 3 is as listed in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

(1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of the person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is withdrawn and the deposit is made in the name of the taxpayer, the deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, in special circumstances where withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit in the name of the taxpayer are made for other purpose than donation, it is necessary to prove such fact to the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). According to the facts admitted above, the above money is presumed to have been withdrawn from the account held by the decedent’s account or the decedent’s name and paid to the Plaintiff. Thus, it is presumed that the above money was donated to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that he was paid the principal and interest of the money loaned to the deceased. According to the written statements in subparagraphs 4 through 7 of this Article and the witness testimony in Parkccc, on March 6, 2009, the plaintiff transferred KRW 200 million from the Hoo-O-21 in the name of the deceased to the Hoo-O account in the name of the deceased. On the same day, on the Government of Gyeonggi-do owned by the decedent, the mortgagee, the debtor, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 30 million, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage between the deceased and the deceased as to the deceased's property division and the deceased's 208o-200,000,000 won is recognized as the compensation for property division and the deceased's 200,000,000 won to the deceased's family head, Dongo-dong, Gyeonggi-do, and the deceased's 209,000,0000,000 won to the deceased's property division and the deceased's 209.

Applicant on the other hand, the following facts are recognized in full view of each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4.

① The KRW KRW o-O transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the o-O account under the name of the decedent on March 6, 2009 was withdrawn in cash or transferred to the o-O bank account of the decedent on April 6, 2009, as follows:

(2) The death of an ancestor according to the report on the completion of inheritance tax investigation on the decedent (Evidence 1)

Of the inherited property at the time of o.o. 201, the financial assets of the inherited property are approximately oooo (total of reported and omitted reported items) and the donated financial assets of the decedent from around 2007 to around 2010 are ooowon and oooowon.

③ The right to collateral security was established or terminated with respect to the o-0 Doo-0 Dooo-do, Dongwon-dong, Gyeonggi-do, which owned the decedent, as follows:

(v) Taking into account the overall purport of the pleading in the above facts of recognition, the decedent of a Do government-invested organization, while holding considerable financial assets from around 2007 to around 2010, donated the financial assets of KRW o0 million to the heir including the plaintiff, and left for the financial assets of KRW o0 million as inherited property at the time of the death. Rather, borrowing KRW o0 million from the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiff's prior donation to the heir including the plaintiff, the borrowing of KRW o0 million from the plaintiff would be an exceptional. The plaintiff's account from the plaintiff's account was divided into cash withdrawal or account transfer for less than KRW 1 month to the decedent's account and withdrawn from KRW o00,000 after account transfer. In light of the method of withdrawal, it is difficult to view that it was used as consolation money and cash transfer in accordance with the divorce of the deceased's divorce case. Unlike this, it is difficult to view that the location of the use of the money was unclear, as seen earlier, and it appears that the plaintiff provided property division registration against the above decedent.

1) As seen earlier, there is a joint collateral list in the registration of establishment of a neighboring o-Ooo-O on the Doo-Ooo-O, Dong-dong, Gyeonggi-do Government, deeming that there is a joint collateral list is established on a large number of real estate.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case on the ground that the issue amount in this case was donated to the Plaintiff is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.