Whether there was a gift from debt exemption through the repayment of the Plaintiff’s loan

It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff exempted the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff’s obligation by repaying the instant loan on behalf of the Plaintiff, since it was not proven otherwise as to the fact that the Plaintiff provided the instant loan with the money it borrowed.

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 36 (Gifts Pursuant to Exemption, etc. of Obligation)

2015Guhap20429 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

on October 26, 2016

on July 24, 2015

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 of KRW 34,024,860 against the Plaintiff on May 20, 2013 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 15, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate and its ground (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) in collaboration with 1, b1, and 2 (ab1, Ab2) of Jin-gu Busan (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) and borrowed the instant real estate from 1.4 billion won as security from 00 bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “0 bank”) on the same day, and borrowed the instant real estate from 1,40 million won on December 28, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant loan”).

B. On December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff’s father A1 took out a loan of KRW 1.7 billion from a A golf practice range owned by himself and B1 as security and repaid the instant loan of KRW 1.7 billion.

C. As a result of conducting a tax investigation, the director of the Seosan Tax Office decided that a A1 repaid the instant loan due to debt exemption against the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant of taxation data. On May 20, 2013, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 34,024,860 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 6, 2013 upon filing an objection, but was dismissed on December 3, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff shared with the father A1, b1, and 2 Libydong B building (hereinafter referred to as “B building”) in Busan, Yadong B building (hereinafter referred to as “B building”) and operated a real estate rental business jointly. A1 repaid the instant loan with the Plaintiff’s rent revenue (1.9 million won) for the Plaintiff’s B building prior to the repayment of the instant loan. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that a1 made donation to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the instant loan.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

around December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff’s father A1 repaid the instant loan in its own name as seen earlier. The following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as seen earlier, namely, ① the Plaintiff jointly with A1, etc. for the instant real estate and B building lease business, and up to December 31, 2008, the Plaintiff’s total amount of the leased income accrued by December 31, 2008 (see, e.g., evidence 1) appears to have been merely KRW 43 million. A1 cannot be deemed to have repaid the instant loan with the Plaintiff’s leased income less than half of the instant loan. ② The Plaintiff asserted that it was the actual debtor of the instant loan at the time of the tax investigation, and that it was merely a change in the obligor’s name, and that it was difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s loan was repaid with the Plaintiff’s new bank’s loan repayment and loan repayment with the Plaintiff’s loan borrowed from A1 on its own account.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as there is no ground.