Seocho 2012west 3543 ( December 05, 2012)

acquisition of real property with money to be donated to a third party, and this disposition is justified

As to the fact that real estate was acquired from the father, the plaintiff asserts that it was a loan and returned to the father for a long time, but its credibility and reliability cannot be recognized.

2013Guhap5920 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

LAA

BB Director of the Tax Office

June 18, 2013

July 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax OOO on January 11, 2012 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 21, 2007, the Plaintiff acquired OO-dong 1454-29 O-dong 102 Dong 502 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from OO-dong 1454-29.

B. From August 31, 2011 to November 28, 2011, the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation with respect to the highestCC, which was the Plaintiff’s put to the investigation, and conducted the investigation into the Plaintiff’s above acquisition cost, and deemed that the Plaintiff received OOO Won from the largestCC and used it as the acquisition price for the instant apartment, and notified the Defendant, and on January 11, 2012, the Defendant decided and notified the KRW OOOO of gift tax to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On June 4, 2012, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed a request for trial with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on December 5, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, who had earned business income from 1997 to 2004, had been employed by the highestCC as the plaintiff, for the purpose of lending the total amount of KRW 1 OOOO won on June 2, 2005, and on June 7, 2005. Thus, among the OOO members that the plaintiff was donated by the highestCC, the above loans have been repaid, and it should be deducted from the value of donated property.

B. Determination

In general, in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a tax imposition disposition, the taxation requirement must have the burden of proof against the imposing authority, and if it is revealed that the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit have been presumed, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirement unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu811, Dec. 22, 1987).

In this case, the plaintiff does not dispute that the plaintiff received O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O) from the most available amount for the acquisition of the A-O-O-2 of the instant money. Thus, according to whether the O-O-O-O-2 of the said money was repaid the money that it had been leased as alleged by the plaintiff, and Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-4-2, and Gap evidence 5-1 and 2, the fact that the D bank account (Account Number O-O-O-O-2) in the name of the plaintiff was transferred from the NA bank account (Account Number O-2) in the name of the plaintiff on June 2, 2005 to the AO bank account (Account Number O-O-2) in the name of the plaintiff, and that the 2O-205 O-20.O-20, and that the 205O-200-O-O-20.

However, the above evidence and evidence are as follows, which are acknowledged by adding the whole arguments to the statements in the second and third evidence, i.e., ① the money credit business or rental business, and housing construction and sales business revenue deposited from the other party to the transaction into the account in the name of the plaintiff or plaintiff, not the leastCC, and there was a transaction between the plaintiff and the plaintiff from time to time. ② Unlike the allegations in this case, the plaintiff explained that at the time of the tax investigation, the plaintiff remitted OOOO to the leastCC to use the funds for the capital increase of non-listed stocks at the time of capital increase of the EE EE Co., Ltd. operating the largestCC on June 2, 2005, and the facts of the loan made on June 7, 2005 are presented, and there was no other assertion as to the above facts that the loan was made after the second and subsequent payment, and there was no objective evidence to support OOOO's use in light of the fact that the plaintiff did not have any other evidence to prove that the loan was made between the plaintiff and the apartment.

Ultimately, this case’s disposition is legitimate where the gift tax is calculated and imposed, including the above OOO members’ donated property.

3. Conclusion

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