Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Dec. 1, 2011>

Head of Yeongdeungpo Tax Office

February 26, 2013

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2011Guhap20505 decided December 8, 2011

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 disposition of imposition of KRW 1,330,711,060 against the Plaintiff on July 19, 2010 is revoked.

1. Imposition of gift tax;

The following facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12 (including additional numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, with a comprehensive view to the purport of the entire pleadings.

[1]

On April 9, 2008, the election of National Assembly members of the 18th National Assembly was held. Between March 25, 2008 and April 9, 2008, the friendship Joint and several was deposited KRW 1.51 billion from Nonparty 1 to 1.5 billion into an account for the receipt of political funds from friendship Joint and Several, and on March 27, 2008, Nonparty 2 deposited KRW 100 million from Nonparty 2 for the said political fund revenue account. Between March 28, 2008 and April 7, 2008, Nonparty 2’s mother received KRW 1.6 billion from Nonparty 3 as the said political fund revenue account and received it through Nonparty 8’s accountant in charge of friendship Joint and Several Accounting (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant money”).

On March 26, 2008, ○○ Gambling Joint and Several Relations registered Nonparty 1 with Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 2 with the National Election Commission upon recommendation of Nonparty 1 in the same order of priority as proportional representative candidates for the 18th National Assembly member. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were elected as proportional representative in the 18th National Assembly member on April 9, 2008.

[2]

After ○○○ on May 30, 2008, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 were indicted for violating the Public Official Election Act and the Political Funds Act (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gohap560), and the facts charged were that: (a) Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) provided the instant money to friendship and solidarity was a contribution of political funds in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate; and (b) Nonparty 1, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1, etc.”) committed a violation of subparagraph 1 of Article 32 of the Political Funds Act.

On the other hand, on the other hand, on May 13, 2008, △△ Group transferred the claim of KRW 1,421,479,452 to Nonparty 3’s husband 4, 101,380,821 to Nonparty 5, and KRW 101,726,027 to Nonparty 3’s mother to Nonparty 6, respectively, and demanded Nonparty 4, etc. to receive the above money from the National Election Commission on June 5, 2008, and paid KRW 1,532,963,292 among the election expenses compensation paid by the National Election Commission on June 5, 2008 to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 7.

○○ on August 14, 2008, a judgment of convictioning Nonparty 1, etc. of the above facts charged was rendered, and on November 12, 2008, the judgment of the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2008No2194) that was rendered on November 12, 208 and the judgment of the appellate court that was rendered on May 14, 2009 (Supreme Court 2008Do11040) was also convicted of the above facts charged.

[3]

○ The Defendant determined that: (a) Nonparty 1, etc. provided the instant money to friendship jointly and severally was a contribution of political funds in relation to the recommendation of a specific person as a candidate in the election of public officials; and (b) that friendly solidarity under Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act should be deemed to have been donated the instant money by falling under political funds under subparagraph 1 of Article 32 of the Political Funds

On February 12, 2010, the name of the friendship group changed to future solidarity. On July 19, 2010, the Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 632,684,560,000 on KRW 1.50,000,000 on KRW 1.50,000,000, which was provided by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1, and the Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 14,251,50,00 on KRW 1.683,75,00,00 on KRW 683,775,00,000 on KRW 1,30,71,060 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The U.S. P. P. P.C. had filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 2010, following the filing of an objection on August 20, 2010. However, on April 14, 2011, the request for a trial was dismissed.

On February 2, 2010, the future desired solidarity was merged into the Hanna Party, and on February 14, 2012, the name of Hanna Party changed to the new one, and the Plaintiff (the New one) taken over the instant lawsuit brought by the original future desired solidarity at the trial.

2. Contribution of political funds;

(a) Relevant statutes;

(1) Article 76(1) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that political funds donated by a resident to a political party, etc. pursuant to the Political Funds Act shall be deducted or deducted, etc., and Article 76(2) of the same Act provides that political funds donated by a resident pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be subject to inheritance tax and gift tax, and Article 76(3) of the same Act provides that political funds, other than political funds, pursuant to paragraph (1), shall be deemed inherited or donated by the donor, and the inheritance tax and gift tax shall be levied on such political funds, notwithstanding the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and other

(2) On the other hand, Article 3 of the Political Funds Act provides that the term "political funds" means all the acts of providing political funds by individuals, supporters' associations and other persons for political activities, including party membership fees, support payments, deposits, subsidies, incidental revenues as stipulated in the party constitution and regulations, and other political activities, including political parties, persons elected by a public official election, candidates for public office or candidates, supporters' associations, executives and employees of political parties, and other persons who intend to be candidates, money, securities and other goods provided to public officials in charge of political activities, and expenses for their political activities. The term "donations" means the acts of providing political funds by individuals, supporters' associations and other persons for political activities. In this case, where a third party bears or disburses expenses for political activities by a person who engages in political activities, lending money and valuables or facilities without compensation, exemption and reduction of debts, and other benefits, etc. shall be deemed contributions.

(3) In addition, Article 31 of the Political Funds Act provides that any foreigner, domestic or foreign corporation or organization shall not contribute political funds, and Article 32 Subparag. 1 of the △△△△ may not contribute or receive any political funds in relation to the recommendation of any specific person as a candidate in the election of public officials, and Article 45(2)5 of the △△△△△△△, Article 31 or 32 provides that any person who contributes or receives any political funds in violation of the provisions of Article 45(2)5 of the △△△△△△△, Article 31 or 3

B. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since the money for the 18th National Assembly election is necessary, the money was borrowed from Nonparty 1, etc. on the condition of payment of interest, and all of them were returned, and does not receive a donation of the instant money. Therefore, the instant disposition on which gift tax was imposed on the instant money, which is not property interest, is unlawful, when determining that the Magambling Joint and Several was donated the instant money.

(2) Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that gift tax shall be imposed on political funds other than political funds under Article 76(1) of the same Act. This provision provides that gift tax shall be imposed on political funds violating Article 31 of the Political Funds Act. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the instant funds that violate Article 32 Subparag. 1 of the Political Funds Act is unlawful.

(c) Determination-1

(1) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements Nos. 7 (including paper numbers) and No. 9-12, it is recognized that there is a loan certificate in which friendship and solidarity was prepared with the interest rate of KRW 1.51 billion received from Nonparty 1 and KRW 1.6 billion received from Nonparty 3 at the rate of KRW 8% per annum.

(2) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document, such as a loan certificate, is recognized, the existence and contents of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document shall be recognized. However, since the disposal document's legal act means the act performed by the person in question, it means that the act was done by the document, the legal principles as to the probative value of the disposal document are not applied in case where a certain act was done formally after it was performed (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2986 delivered on May 30, 1997), and in case of a common disposal document, if there are special circumstances that clearly and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement, the contents may be rejected (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34643 delivered on April 13, 206, etc.).

On the other hand, in a case where the fact that money and valuables are provided as political funds but they are borrowed, whether they are actually borrowed or not shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the objective circumstances revealed by evidence, such as the motive, reason for and method of delivery, relationship between the person who provided money and the person who provided the money, the duties and career of both parties, the need and career of the recipient, the possibility of borrowing from a person other than the person who provided the money, the amount of the money borrowed and the circumstances of the person who provided the money, the size of profits related to the provision of the money, the amount of the money borrowed and the circumstances of the person who provided it, whether the money and valuables are provided as security, whether the person provided the principal and interest, whether the person provided the money and the possibility of compulsory execution, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do394

(3) The circumstances examined in full view of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire evidence duly admitted are as follows.

In the 18th National Assembly, which was carried out on April 9, 2008, the 18th National Assembly member's name was changed from the 18th National Assembly member, and the political party's system was re-established. Therefore, it was urgent to raise financial resources, such as media advertising expenses, to publicize the party and candidates. In order to resolve the debts of 1.1 billion won succeeded from the 18th National Assembly member, which is a telegraph of the friendly club, and the political party's operating funds, etc., it was necessary to KRW 00 million.

The representative of 30 billion won was delegated by the highest committee on the recommendation of candidates for proportional representative membership fees. Nonparty 10 to Nonparty 2: (a) on March 22, 2008, Nonparty 11 sent e-mail to Nonparty 10; and (b) on March 23, 2008, Nonparty 2 sent 70 billion won to Nonparty 10 billion won to Nonparty 8’s account; and (c) Nonparty 2 sent 10 billion won to Nonparty 8’s account for proportional representative membership fees; and (d) Nonparty 2 sent 8 billion won to Nonparty 100 million won to Nonparty 2; and (e) on March 25, 2008, Nonparty 100 million won to Nonparty 2’s account for proportional representative membership fees, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 received 100 billion won from Nonparty 2’s account for large amount of political funds; and (e) Nonparty 300 billion won to Nonparty 2’s special election for proportional representative membership fees.

(1) On April 14, 2008, Nonparty 2 asked questions as to whether he paid the party membership fees at the press conference held at the friendship conference, and asked to the effect that it is difficult for a political party as a party member to help the political party, and that the amount would be revealed in the course of accounting settlement. On April 16, 2008, Nonparty 9 asked questions to the effect that the amount of the special party membership fees was collected during the prosecutor’s investigation process, and asked to the effect that he was revealed during the prosecutor’s investigation process. On April 21, 2008, Nonparty 2 did not mention that he borrowed the election expenses. In light of these circumstances, the friendship appears to have received the money from Nonparty 1 as a special name in relation to the recommendation of the candidate’s proportional representative, and that it was difficult to deem that the party membership fees were returned in the future.

In a case where friendship and solidarity decided to borrow funds worth KRW 3.21 billion as in the instant case, it appears that the highest committee discussed or the core workers on duty entered into a statement about the other party, amount, and repayment method of the loan. In this regard, Nonparty 9, the representative of △△△ Group, from March 24, 2008 to March 26, 2008, requested Nonparty 1 to lend money two times between the prosecutorial investigation, and Nonparty 1 did not speak at the interest rate, Nonparty 1 did not ask Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 1 did not ask Nonparty 1 for the loan of money, and Nonparty 1 also stated that it was 80 million won deposited from Nonparty 3 on March 28, 2008, and Nonparty 1 did not appear to have been jointly and severally reported from Nonparty 1 to the prosecutorial office on the loan of KRW 1.40 million. In light of the fact that Nonparty 2 was 500 million, it was difficult to say Nonparty 3 did not have jointly and severally reported the interest payment.

In the prosecution investigation on March 27, 2008, Nonparty 3: (a) requested that Nonparty 1 lend money due to the lack of the party’s press advertising expenses, and (b) requested that Nonparty 1 first refuse to make a decision; (c) on March 28, 2008, Nonparty 3 deposited money into a pro-Japanese joint and several account by lending money for the purpose of receiving interest from the husband Nonparty 4; (d) on March 27, 2008, Nonparty 3 borrowed money from Nonparty 3’s ○○○○○ branch of a corporate bank on March 25, 2008; and (e) on March 28, 2008, Nonparty 3 made a request for a loan of KRW 2 billion to Nonparty 3’s ○○○○○ branch of the above bank’s account; and (e) on March 28, 2008, Nonparty 3 deposited money from Nonparty 4’s representative director’s bank’s loan account to the said company’s loan account.

In relation to the 18th election of National Assembly members, 1.7 billion won, remaining 1.7 billion won, excluding the down payment to be paid in cash from the National Election Commission under a contract entered into with the 18th election of National Assembly members. From the end of March 2008, 2008, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 recommended Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 as a candidate for proportional representation, they reported various suspicions to the press in relation to the recommendation, and prosecutorial investigation was conducted. Such suspicions were conducted. On May 13, 2008, Nonparty 3 transferred some of the election expenses compensation paid by the National Election Commission to Nonparty 3, and paid part of the election expenses compensation paid by the National Election Commission on June 5, 2008 to Nonparty 1. Accordingly, in light of the circumstances that Nonparty 1 could not be paid the remainder of the election expenses to Nonparty 1, 2008, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who were charged with the remaining amount of money borrowed after borrowing.

In the investigation at the prosecutor's investigation, Nonparty 1, when lending KRW 100 million to the relatives' solidarity on March 25, 2008, received a loan certificate from Nonparty 8, and immediately received a loan certificate from Nonparty 8 after making a deposit, and thereafter, in the investigation thereafter, the loan certificate for KRW 100 million deposited on March 25, 2008 and KRW 1.1 billion deposited on March 26, 2008 was received from Nonparty 8 on March 27, 2008, and the statement on the time when the loan certificate was prepared is inconsistent. In light of these circumstances, there is a lot of room to deem that the loan certificate was prepared later.

In the appellate judgment of the above criminal case where Nonparty 1 et al. was prosecuted, it was judged that Nonparty 1 et al. provided the money of this case free of charge for friendship, and it was judged that Nonparty 1 et al. violated the Political Funds Act or the Public Official Election Act by giving and receiving financial opportunities through lending money even if the money of this case falls under the borrowed money. In addition, in the judgment of the appellate court of the above criminal case, the judgment of the above appellate court ruled that Nonparty 1 et al. provided the money of this case free of charge for friendship and friendship is justifiable. Since the relevant criminal judgment in the administrative litigation becomes final and conclusive, unless there are special circumstances that it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment of the criminal case, the fact that the money of this case is contrary to this cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10424 delivered on November 26, 199, etc.).

(4) In light of the above, although the above loan certificate is a disposal document, the contents of the loan certificate can be rejected, as it is deemed clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the loan certificate, and the statement of the statement and the statement of the non-party 7 and the non-party 9, which are related to the non-party 1 and the non-party 9, and the account books for the receipt and disbursement of the friendship 8 and the non-party 9, which are related to the non-party 1 and the non-party 7 and the non-party 9, which are related to the above loan certificate, are not trusted, and eventually, they are recognized to have received the money of this case not by the non-party 1 from the non-party 1, but by the contribution of the money of this case in the election of public officials. This is recognized to have received the contribution

Therefore, it is legitimate to impose gift tax on the instant money under Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act in the disposition of this case. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(d) Determination-2

(1) As seen earlier, Article 76 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that political funds contributed by a resident to a political party, etc. pursuant to the Political Funds Act shall be deducted or deducted, etc., and that political funds other than political funds under the provisions of paragraph (3) shall be deemed inherited or donated by the donor, notwithstanding the provisions of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and other tax-related Acts, and the inheritance tax or gift tax shall be imposed.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, Article 31 of the Political Funds Act provides that any foreigner, domestic or foreign corporation or organization shall not contribute political funds, and Article 32 Subparag. 1 of the △△△△ may not contribute or receive any political funds in relation to the recommendation of any specific person as a candidate in an election for public office, and Article 45(2)5 of the △△△△△△△, Article 31 or Article 32 provides that any person who contributes or receives any political funds in violation of the provisions of Article 32 shall be punished as a crime of illegal receipt of political funds.

(2) According to the aforementioned provisions, Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that gift tax shall be imposed on all political funds other than lawful political funds donated to political parties, etc. pursuant to the Political Funds Act, and Article 31 of the Political Funds Act does not impose gift tax only on political funds that violate Article 31 of the Political Funds Act.

At the time of the establishment of Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, there was an opinion that the National Assembly’s review report by the Financial Economic Committee of the National Assembly should limit its application to political funds in violation of Article 12 of the Political Funds Act (the same content as Article 31 of the Political Funds Act). However, since such an opinion is not adopted and Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is prescribed as above, such provision cannot be interpreted as the opinion of the said review report.

In addition, it is necessary to make a comprehensive judgment in accordance with the criteria such as whether a taxpayer's act is expected to be subject to taxation because it falls under the relevant phrase, which is a taxation requirement, from the taxpayer's standpoint, whether the uncertainty of the relevant phrase is granting the possibility of applying the law in a arbitrary and discriminatory manner from the administrative office's point of view, whether it is possible to expect the choice of more conclusive phrases technically in legislation, and in light of the contents and form of the above provision, the provisions of Article 76 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act cannot be deemed to go against the principle of clarity of taxation requirements.

(3) Therefore, it is lawful to impose gift tax on the instant money in violation of Article 32 of the Political Funds Act in the instant disposition. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Return of money.

(a) Relevant statutes;

(1) Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”) provides that, where the donated property (excluding money) is returned within the reporting deadline under Article 68 by agreement between the parties after receiving the donation, the donation shall be deemed not to have existed from the beginning.

(2) In addition, Article 31(5) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that in a case where the donee returns the donated property (excluding money) to the donor or re-donates the donated property to the donor within 3 months after the expiration of the time limit for report pursuant to Article 68, gift tax shall not be imposed on such returned or re-donates.

B. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Since pro-Japanese returned the instant money to Nonparty 1, etc. within three months after the filing deadline of gift tax, gift tax cannot be imposed on the instant money by deeming that there was no donation from the beginning pursuant to Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the said money is excluded from the money deemed not to have been donated from the beginning when returned within the filing deadline. However, such provision is null and void as it goes against the principle of equality or the principle of excessive prohibition under the Constitution. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the instant money returned to Nonparty 1, etc. by pro-Japanese is unlawful.

(2) In the event that a return is made within the filing deadline under Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, even if the provision that excludes money from the subject that is deemed to have never been donated from the beginning is not unconstitutional, the application of Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is excluded, and thus, the gift contract is retroactively terminated in accordance with the general principle of termination of the contract. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the instant money that was returned to Nonparty 1, etc. is unlawful.

(3) In light of the strict interpretation principle of the no taxation without law, “money” under Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act should be deemed to mean only the “money or currency”. Since the instant money was deposited in a pro-Japanese account and returned through account transfer and does not constitute “transfer and acquisition of deposit bonds”, it does not constitute “money or currency” under Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. Therefore, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the instant money is unlawful.

(c) Determination-1

(1) Article 31(4) and (5) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act restrict the freedom of contract or economic freedom of the parties to a gift by restricting the validity of the rescission of an agreement on the gift contract. However, it cannot be deemed that the content of the contract is necessary and reasonable for the execution of the taxation claim, and it does not go against the provisions of the Constitution declaring the free market economic order or infringe on the essence of the contract. Further, the legislators can regulate the effect of the rescission of agreement at each stage, and this provision recognizes the retroactive effect of the termination of agreement only within the time limit for filing the gift tax return based on the fact that the obligation to pay the gift tax already established is not affected by the rescission of the agreement on the gift contract, so it cannot be said that it is in violation of the principle of no taxation without the law or in violation of the principle of property rights guarantee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du10738, Nov. 26, 199; 9HunBa619, Jun. 198, 98).

(2) The fact that there is no substantial increase in the property of the original donor or donee due to the rescission of an agreement on donation is merely the result of the contract, and the return upon the rescission of an agreement does not substantially differ from the original donation. In other words, the donee has already acquired the donated property by the original donation. Unlike the cancellation under the right to statutory rescission or the right to rescind a contract, the termination of an agreement on the gift contract made thereafter is a new contract with the purport to extinguish the validity of an existing contract and return it to the same state as that of the original contract had not been entered into. Thus, the act of returning the donated property by termination of an agreement is a type of agreement on the return of the donated property. Thus, the act of returning the donated property by an agreement can only be deemed as a new donation different from the original donation, and this is, in light of the fact that it is different from the original donation, it cannot be said that there is no change in the property status of the original donor or donee in economic terms, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as violating the principle of no taxation without law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20013Hun-Ba.

(3) In the case of a donation of money, there is a special feature that the money may not be separated or specified by mixing it with the cash assets held by the donee at the same time as the donation is made, and in the case of money, there is also a need to prevent this from being abused by repeating the donation and return within the reporting deadline. In principle, even if the parties to a donation contract have cancelled the agreement on the said donation contract after the State’s taxation claims have occurred due to the implementation of the donation contract or the arrangement of donation as prescribed by the statutes, the said agreement cannot affect the State’s taxation claims already occurred. Even if the State recognizes the exception to money in order to achieve the policy purpose as above, it cannot be said that the taxpayer discrimination without any reasonable reason. Accordingly, even if the amount equivalent to the money is returned within the reporting deadline, it is difficult to deem that the donation tax is imposed even if the amount is returned within the reporting deadline, thereby infringing on the essential contents of the donee’s property rights.

(4) If so, if Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is returned within the reporting deadline, it cannot be deemed unconstitutional to exclude money from the object which is deemed to have never been donated from the beginning. The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

(d) Determination-2

(1) Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act only provides that the return by the filing deadline shall be deemed not to have existed from the beginning, and it does not provide that where gift tax is levied pursuant to Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act shall not apply.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act is a provision that attempts to restrain the receipt and receipt of illegal political funds, and that giving motive to the return of the illegal political funds that have already been received is consistent with the legislative purpose, and that Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is applied in cases where the gift tax is imposed pursuant to Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, and rather, it is impossible to give motive to the return of the illegal political funds in the process of returning the illegal political funds. Therefore, in cases where gift tax is imposed pursuant to Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, it shall be interpreted that Article 31(4) of

However, Article 76 (3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act provides that gift tax shall be imposed on all illegal political funds other than legitimate political funds donated to a political party, etc. in accordance with the Political Funds Act, and even if such provision is a provision to restrain illegal political funds, if the return is made in order to give a motive for the return of the already accepted illegal political funds, it shall not be deemed that there was no donation from the beginning without any restriction.

Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that where a person returns money within the reporting deadline, he/she shall be deemed not to have made a donation from the beginning, and as seen earlier, the said provision shall be maintained even where gift tax is imposed pursuant to Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act, taking into account the characteristics that the money is mixed with cash assets held by the donee at the same time as the donation, making it impossible to separate and specify it possible to separate and specify the money, and concerns over the abuse of money by repeating it by the reporting deadline.

(3) If so, Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act applies to cases where gift tax is imposed pursuant to Article 76(3) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(e) Determination-3

(1) Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act provides that “money” shall be excluded from the scope of “money,” where a return is made within the reporting deadline, and the deposit or transfer of money to an account is merely a method of receiving and receiving money. Thus, even in the case of depositing or transferring money to an account, it shall be deemed that the “money” under Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act is limited to “money or currency” under the principle of strict interpretation of the principle of no taxation without law.

In addition, according to the facts acknowledged above, the amount of this case was deposited in the friendship Joint and several Accounts, or paid in cash or cashier's checks to the accountant in charge of friendship, and the account itself was not transferred or taken over, such as change of the name of the account.

(2) If so, the instant money constitutes “money” under Article 31(4) of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be justified, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

【Attached Statutes omitted】

Judicial Enforcement Decree of Judges (Presiding Judge)