Daegu District Court-2016-Gu Partnership-997 ( November 22, 2016)

Cho Jae-2016-Gu-928 (Law No. 18, 2016)

Whether the insurance premium of savings insurance in the name of the plaintiff paid by the plaintiff for the purpose of income division can be considered as donation.

(See the judgment of the court of first instance) The party which entered into the insurance contract of this case is the plaintiff's reference, and since the actual person to whom the insurance contract of this case belongs cannot be seen as the plaintiff, the disposition of this case is unlawful as donation.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

2016Nu7270 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Guhap997 Decided November 22, 2016

December 15, 2017

January 12, 2018

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of ○○○○○ (including additional taxes) of gift tax on September 201, 201 against the Plaintiff on January 4, 2016 and the imposition of ○○○ (including additional taxes) of gift tax on September 2012, respectively, shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this case is as follows, in addition to adding the following judgments as to the defendant's assertion by this court, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Even if the Plaintiff did not participate in the conclusion of each insurance contract of this case, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not take the procedure to change the name of the policyholder of the instant insurance contract to Kim○○, the Plaintiff is bound to have ratified the instant insurance contract concluded by Kim○○. Therefore, the agreement between Kim○ and the Plaintiff on the gift intent of each of the instant insurance premiums should be deemed to have been made retroactively to the date of the insurance contract. Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

B. Determination

The mere fact that the Plaintiff, regardless of himself, was aware that each of the instant insurance contracts was concluded by Kim ○○, did not take the procedure to change the name of the contract to Kim ○, a real party to the insurance contract, cannot be deemed to have ratified the insurance contract. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted due to the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.