(1) In substance, if a sentence is given to such person, the

It is reasonable to view that the transferee of real estate constitutes a juristic person with no substance, and that the Plaintiff, one representative director and one shareholder of the juristic person, was given the receipt of the certificate.

(Cheongju)Revocation, etc. of a disposition imposing gift tax, 2010Nu673

IsaA

○ Head of tax office

Cheongju District Court Decision 2010Guhap400 decided August 12, 2010

March 16, 201

o April 13, 201

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's gift tax of 80,607,520 won against the plaintiff on September 11, 2008

The imposition of capital gains tax of KRW 341,773,960 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is as follows. The reason for this court's explanation is as follows: "SaB" of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office, which will be the second step above the judgment of the court of the first instance; "SaB" of the fifth step above, "SaBC" of the fourth step above, "SOBC" of the fourth step above, "Article 520" of the fifth step above, "Article 520" of the fifth step above, "SAA" of the fifth step above, "SAB" of the fifth step above, "SAB" of the fifth step above, and "SA" of the fifth step above, "SA" of the court of the first instance as "BB" of the second step," and "SaB relation" of the fifth step above as "legal relation" of the court of the first instance, and "SaBC" of the court of the second step through "OOCCC", and the second step below's argument that the court below added the second step to Article 9 of the court's judgment as follows.

2. Parts to be dried;

Determination on the legal relationship of the instant land around May 7, 1976

In addition to the facts acknowledged above, the plaintiff and thisCC were minors at the time of May 7, 1976 when the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land in this case was completed, and there was no special reason to complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land in this case only under the name of thisCC, and thisCC had been maintaining the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land in this case for not less than 23 years from the time of December 30, 199, it is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff owned the land in this case from May 7, 1976, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Accordingly, according to the facts acknowledged above, according to the above, it is reasonable to view that this land in this case was owned by thisCC since May 7, 1976, and it was donated to the plaintiff on December 30, 199.

3. The addition;

“(C) The Plaintiff asserts that the portion of the gift tax in the instant disposition is unlawful after the lapse of five years, which is the period of extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax. However, the right to collect the national tax arises when the tax liability becomes final and conclusive, and the extinctive prescription of the right to collect the national tax is calculated from the time when the State is able to exercise the right to collect the national tax. As seen earlier, as the Plaintiff did not report the taxable value and the tax base of the gift tax on September 11, 2008 and the Defendant imposed the gift tax on September 11, 2008, the right to collect the national tax at this time arises and the extinctive prescription period is calculated. Accordingly, it is apparent that five

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.