Suwon District Court-2016-Guhap6804 (28, 2017)

At the time of registration of transfer of ownership, the donee should be deemed to have donated the real estate itself.

If a donor purchased real estate from another person without completing the registration of ownership transfer in his/her future without completing the registration of ownership transfer, the donee should be deemed to have donated real estate itself at the time of the registration of ownership transfer.

Article 60 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2017Nu60521 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

Ma-○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Guhap6804 Decided June 28, 2017

2018.03.07

2018.04.04

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 43,457,40 on February 2, 2016 against the Plaintiff of KRW 43,457,40 on the principal tax on the gift tax accrued in September 2, 2013, KRW 5,747,010 on the additional tax on negligent tax return, and KRW 9,126,050

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the modification of the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following 2. Thus, this Court cites it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ 2 pages 8 of the contract is called a "purchase contract".

○ 2. The phrase “this case’s sales contract on April 26, 2003” is deemed to read “this case’s sales contract on April 28, 2003” (hereinafter “this case’s sales contract on April 26, 2003” in the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed to read “this case’s sales contract on April 28, 2003”.

○ 5 7 pages. The following shall be added to:

A) If a donor purchased real estate from another person without completing the registration of ownership transfer, and donated such real estate to a donee without completing the registration of ownership transfer in the future of a donee, the donee itself shall be deemed to have been donated at the time of the registration of ownership transfer, and it cannot be deemed that the donee merely received the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da6135, Aug. 20, 199).

○ 5 8 to 14 parallels are as follows.

B) In light of the above legal principles, the evidence concerning this case was not prepared for the sale contract of this case 1 to 5, 28 through 30, 42-1 to 3, 4-4, 7, 13-1 to 3, and part of the testimony of Park Jong-chul as a witness, and the following circumstances which can be known by considering the overall purport of the pleading. In particular, from the conclusion of the sale contract of this case on April 28, 2003 to the conclusion of the sale contract of this case 1 to the date the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff as to the land of this case was completed, and the sale contract of this case was not prepared for the sale contract of this case 1 to 20, 300, 1 to 20, 300, 1 to 30, 200, 200, 1 to 30,000, 1 to 28, 2013.

○ 6 14 others’ answer. The following shall be added:

However, Park K, as a witness in this Court, was aware that this Court was the purchaser of the land of this case at the time of the sales contract on April 28, 2003, and this Court testified to the effect that this Court was "A", but around 2008, it was assumed that EA was the purchaser of the land of this case, and that EA was to deal with the land of this case at the time of contact with EB upon the request of EB, and that it was only due BB for the first time around 2008.

○ 6th day below the 3rd day, the 3rd day below is moving to “Plaintiff”.

○ 7. The 9th page "○ Bank" is regarded as "○ Bank."

○ 7 pages 11 on the 11st day is moving "Isk" into "Isk".

○ 7 12. The following shall be added to:

(7) At the time of concluding the sales contract as of April 28, 2003, the instant land was located within the land transaction permission zone. On January 31, 2012, the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs publicly announced the cancellation of the land transaction permission zone for the area including the instant land.

○ 8 The following shall be added to the 5th page:

Article 44 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "The property transferred to the spouse, or a lineal ascendant or descendant (hereafter in this Article, the spouse, etc.) shall be presumed to have been donated by the spouse, etc. at the time of transfer of the property by the transferor, and shall be deemed to have been donated by

○ 8 6 6 o to 12 o.b. (b) are as follows.

In accordance with Article 44(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the acquisition time of the instant land, which is a donated property, is "the time of transferring the instant land to the Plaintiff that is a lineal descendant," and "the time of transferring the ownership registration date" means "the time of transferring the ownership of the instant land (as of September 6, 2013)" by considering the date of acquiring the ownership registration date under the name of the Plaintiff (as of September 6, 2013) as the time of acquiring donated property and evaluating and imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff based on the officially assessed individual land price in 2013 as of September 5, 2013, is legitimate (as of the date of donation contract, the acquisition date of the instant land, which is a donated property, is "the time of transferring the instant land to the Plaintiff that is a lineal descendant," and thus, "the date of transferring the ownership registration date" means "the date of acquiring the ownership registration date under the name of the Plaintiff (as of September 3, 2013).

○ 8 13 Beginning from the last place to the last place.

Following the 9th page, the following is added: “The period for the payment of gift tax pursuant to the gift made by September 6, 2013 was December 31, 2013, and the imposition of penalty surcharges by the Gwangju City Mayor was later made on June 23, 2014.”

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.