The fact that the source of the fund to acquire real estate is not the nominal owner but the other spouse is not the nominal owner can be seen as having donated the fund to the nominal owner.

If the fact that the source of the acquisition fund of real estate was not the nominal owner but the other spouse, the nominal owner shall be deemed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund from the spouse, and the taxpayer who asserts that the donation cannot be deemed to have been made due to the title trust of the real estate concerned.

Presumption of donation of property transferred to the spouse, etc. under Article 44 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act

revocation of revocation of imposition of gift tax by Suwon District Court 2015Guhap70257

AA

00. Head of tax office

October 05, 2016

November 1, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 550,703,40 against the Plaintiff on January 1, 2015 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고는 2010. 10. 18. 서울 〇〇구 〇〇동 〇〇-〇〇 〇〇〇동 〇〇〇호(이하 '이 사건 아파트'라 한다)에 관하여 같은 달 9. 7. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기(거래가액 2,750,000,000원)를 마쳤다.

B. On January 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that “the Plaintiff was donated KRW 1,750,000,000,000 other than the amount of KRW 1,750,000,00,000 from a financial institution loan to acquire the apartment of this case from cC, the husband, and imposed gift tax of KRW 550,70,70 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on April 10, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on July 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 22, Eul evidence No. 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고와 ccc은 부부로서 각자의 자금을 합하여 이 사건 아파트를 공동매수하되, 다만 ccc의 지분도 원고 명의로 등기하여 둠으로써 부부간 명의신탁을 한 것이고, 원고 지분의 취득자금은 원고가 ccc에게 대여하였다가 변제받은 금원[구체적으로는 원고가 대표이사로 있었던 주식회사 jjj종합건설(이하 'jjj종건'이라 한다)이 주식회사 kk종합건설(이하 'kk종건'이라 한다)로부터 차용한 1,000,000,000원과 용인 수지에 있던 원고 소유 아파트의 처분대금을 재원으로 ccc에게 대여하였다가 변제받은 금원이라고 주장하고, 달리 그 금액은 특정하지 않고 있다]과 원고가 류〇〇으로부터 차용한 금원 600,000,000원, 원고가 운용하던 원고의 자금 100,000,000원을 합하여 마련한 것으로서 ccc로부터 증여받은 것이 아니다.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) 원고는 이 사건 아파트의 매도인 김〇〇에게 매매계약일인 2010. 9. 7. 계약금 200,000,000원을, 2010. 10. 18. 잔금 2,550,000,000원을 각 지급하였다.

2) In the course of the investigation conducted by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written confirmation (Evidence 2) that “The Plaintiff received cash donation from cC on September 7, 2010 and used the instant apartment as the down payment and remainder, with the acquisition of the instant apartment from cC.” (Evidence 2).

3) In the process of the above investigation, the Plaintiff submitted a written vindication on the source of the acquisition fund of the apartment of this case twice. The main contents are as follows.

A) Statement 1 (No. 3)

○ The down payment 200,000,000 won ( September 7, 2010) at the time of acquisition

- - Borrowing from c. 8/24 deposits

○ Any balance of KRW 2,550,000,000 upon acquisition ( October 18, 2010)

- 1,000,000,000원: 〇〇은행 대출

- 1,000,000 Won: k-types sub-loans ( March 3, 2009) - cC has been maintained and used in the form of borrowing from the j type that the Plaintiff is the representative director.

- 5,000,000

B) A supporting document ② (No. 11)

○ Contract deposit 200,000,000 won ( September 7, 2010)

-The down payment shall be deposited from the Plaintiff’s account into the check, the funds shall be borrowed from cc, and cc shall have been deposited into the Plaintiff’s account by drawing up funds from gg construction, aaa stock company, etc.

○ Balance 2,550,000,000 won ( October 18, 2010)

- - Funds

•〇〇은행 대출 10/18 1,000,000,000원

•g construction:10/1 200,000,000,10/4 20,000,0000, 10/11,00,000,000;

10/11 15,00,000 won, 10/13 150,000,000 won

•류〇〇 4/9 600,000,000원 입금

•Deposit in KRW 8/6,000,000 for Company 8/6,000

- The remainder, excluding 1,00,000,000,000,000, out of the remainder, borrowed from ccc and cc, either borrowed from g construction or aa stock company, etc. to the plaintiff;

4) 서울중앙지방검찰청 소속 수사관이 작성한 수사보고서(수신 주임검사 조〇〇, 을 제4호증)에는 "kk종건 대표이사 김〇〇과 ccc 사이의 금전거래 내역을 확인하여 본 바, (중략) ③ ccc은 kk종건에서 2009. 1. 초경 〇〇대학교 기숙사 공사를 수주한 후 김〇〇에게 20억 원을 대여해줄 것을 요구하여 2009. 3. 3.경 jjj종건의 〇〇은행 통장으로 kk종건에서 10억 원을 송금하여 주는 등 위 김〇〇은 총 3회에 걸쳐 17억 원을 ccc에게 지급한 것으로 확인되기에 이를 보고합니다"라고 기재되어 있다.

5) kk종건은 2009. 3. 3. jjj종건의 하나은행 계좌에 1,000,000,000원을 송금하고, 이를 단기대여금으로 회계처리하였다. 그리고 같은 날 ccc은 jjj종건을 대리하여 발행인 jjj종건 및 ccc, 수취인 kk종건, 액면금액 2,000,000,000원, 지급기일 2009. 9. 2.로 된 약속어음 1매를 작성하고, jjj종건의 대리인 겸 발행인의 자격으로 공증인가 법무법인 〇〇〇〇에 어음공정증서의 작성을 촉탁하여 약속어음 공정증서를 작성받아 kk종건에 교부하였다(을 제5호증).

6) On May 22, 2014, the Plaintiff submitted to the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office a written reason for applying for the extension of the tax investigation. The above reason stated as follows: “I do not know that the business and taxes related to the low will be managed and handled by husband cc and do not know the low content (Evidence 6).” The Plaintiff did not hold the shares at the time of being in office as the representative director of thej Classj.

7) On April 9, 2010, KRW 600 million deposited into the account in the Plaintiff’s name as a check.

8) ccc은, 〇〇대학교를 운영하는 학교법인 〇〇학원의 이사이자 〇〇대학교 총장이었던 류〇〇과 공모하여 〇〇대학교에서 발주하는 각종 공사대금 및 〇〇대학교 연수원 부지 매입대금을 부풀리는 방법으로 〇〇대학교교비를 이용하여 비자금을 조성하고 수십억 원을 횡령한 범죄사실 등으로 류〇〇와 함께 유죄판결을 받았는데, 위 비자금 조성과정에서 원고의 계좌를 사용한 바 있음이 밝혀졌다.

9) The Plaintiff resided in the instant apartment from November 16, 2010 to March 25, 2014; cc from August 24, 2011 to September 2, 2011; and c from July 30, 2012 to March 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4, Gap evidence Nos. 20-1, 20-2, Gap evidence Nos. 23-1 through 10, Gap evidence Nos. 24, 27, 28, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 7, and 11, the result of the order of submission of documents to the head of the original tax office of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

1) The burden of proof as to the existence of the facts requiring taxation should be proved by the circumstances in which the other party is not subject to the application of the empirical rule if it is proved that the facts alleged to have been taxed in light of the empirical rule. If, under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the real estate acquired by one spouse in the name of the married couple is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, and it is apparent that the other spouse is not the nominal owner, the nominal owner may be deemed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund from the spouse. In this case, the fact that the real estate concerned cannot be deemed to have received a donation of the acquisition fund because it is not the special property of the nominal owner, but the real estate concerned is a nominal trust

In order to reverse "the presumption of a specific property" under Article 830 (1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse must bear the price for the pertinent real estate and prove that the other spouse acquired the said real estate in order to possess it actually. Thus, the mere fact that the other spouse is the source of the purchase fund does not necessarily mean that there was a title trust as to the pertinent real estate by the reversal of the presumption of a non-conditionable special property, and it does not mean that there was a title trust as to the pertinent real estate. In full view of all the circumstances revealed through the relevant evidence, whether the other spouse bears the price for the real possession of the pertinent real estate should be determined individually and specifically by considering all the circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du80

Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, such as that if a tax authority received a written confirmation from a person liable to pay tax in the course of conducting a tax investigation, it is difficult to readily deny the evidence of such written confirmation, barring any such circumstance as where the written confirmation was forced against the intent of the person who prepared the document, or it is difficult to consider it as evidence of specific facts due to lack of the content thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Du2560, Dec. 6, 2002).

2) 이 사건에서 보건대, 위 나.에서 인정한 사실에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하여 알 수있는 다음의 사정, 즉 ① 원고는 조사과정에서 이 사건 아파트의 취득자금 중 금융기관 대출금을 제외한 나머지 1,750,000,000원을 ccc로부터 증여받았거나 적어도 그 출처가 ccc임을 시인하는 취지의 확인서, 소명서를 작성・제출하였고, 위 확인서가 원고의 의사에 반하여 강제로 작성되었다는 증거가 없는 점, ② jjj종건이 kk종건으로부터 차용하였다는 1,000,000,000원은 실질적으로 ccc이 kk종건으로부터 위 금원을 차용하면서 형식적으로 사실상 ccc이 운영하던 jjj종건의 명의를 사용한 것으로 보이는 점(원고가 이에스종건으로부터 위 금원을 차용하고 이를 다시 ccc에게 대여하였다는 점을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다), ③ 2010. 4. 9. 원고의 〇〇은행 계좌에 입금된 600,000,000원이 원고가 류〇〇으로부터 차용한 금원임을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없고, 설령 그 입금자가 류〇〇이라 하더라도, ccc과 류〇〇의 관계에 비추어 보면 ccc이 류〇〇으로부터 위 금원을 차용 내지 지급받으면서 원고의 계좌를 사용한 것일 가능성이 커 보이는 점 등을 종합하면, 이 사건 아파트의 취득자금 중 금융기관 대출금을 제외한 나머지 1,750,000,000원의 출처는 명의자인 원고가 아니라 ccc이라고 봄이 타당하고, 이 사건 아파트는 명의자인 원고의 특유재산으로 추정되므로, 일단 원고가 ccc로부터 위 금원을 증여받은 것으로 볼 수 있다. 이 경우 이 사건 아파트가 원고의 특유재산이 아니고 ccc로부터 명의신탁된 것이기 때문에 그 취득자금을 증여받은 것으로 볼 수 없다는 점에 대하여는 원고가 이를 증명하여야 한다.

However, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the title trust only when the Plaintiff borrowed the entire acquisition fund of the instant apartment from ccc or claimed to the effect that it is the whole funds of the Plaintiff, and only when it comes to the instant lawsuit, at the time of the instant lawsuit. Moreover, it is difficult to recognize the credibility of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the title trust. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s acquisition fund of the instant apartment from 1,750,000,000 won out of 2,750,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff and cc reside together in the instant apartment from cc. on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff and cc reside together in the instant apartment, the Plaintiff’s husband and wife purchased a certain share of the instant apartment from cc and purchased it, or registered in the name of the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.