Seocho 2014west 1251 (2014.09)

Money remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account is presumed to have been donated, except in extenuating circumstances.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that money transferred from the decedent’s account before the decedent’s death to the Plaintiff’s account, which is the spouse, was transferred for other purposes, the Plaintiff is presumed to have received a donation from the decedent

Articles 2, 31 and 47 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap69549 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Inheritance Tax

The AA and 2

BB Director of the Tax Office

July 10, 2015

July 24, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,00,000 on August 20, 2009 with respect to the portion of gift on August 19, 2011, and KRW 00,000,000 on the portion of gift on January 19, 201, and KRW 000,000,000 on May 22, 2011, and KRW 0,000,000 on the portion of gift on December 19, 2012, and revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 0,00,00,000 on the portion of gift on December 19, 203 with respect to the portion of gift on October 1, 2013.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On July 27, 2012, the Plaintiffs inherited real estate, etc. from ParkCC (the husband of the Plaintiff, the husband of the Plaintiff Park Dong, and the father of the Plaintiff ParkD, Park E-E; hereinafter referred to as “the decedent”), and reported and paid KRW 00,000,000 of inheritance tax on January 31, 2013.

B. After conducting an inheritance tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs from April 22, 2013 to September 6, 2013, the Commissioner of the FF Regional Tax Office confirmed that the Plaintiff’s current status was KRW 00,000,000 from the decedent on March 27, 2008, KRW 000,000 on April 1, 2009, KRW 000,000 on August 20, 2009, and KRW 00,000,000 on January 19, 201, and KRW 00,000,000 on May 222, 2011, and that the amount was not reported to the Defendant on July 19, 201, KRW 00,000 on the aggregate of the inherited property (hereinafter “the amount was not reported to the Defendant”).

C. On October 1, 2013, according to the above notification, the Defendant imposed KRW 00,00,000 on the Plaintiff’s presentA for the portion of donation on August 20, 2009, KRW 00,000 for the portion of gift on January 19, 201, KRW 00,000 for the portion of gift on May 22, 2011, and KRW 0,000,000 for the portion of gift on December 19, 201, and imposed on the Plaintiffs KRW 0,000,00 for the amount of gift tax on the portion of gift on December 19, 201, including the money in this case (hereinafter “each disposition in this case”).

D. On January 6, 2014, Plaintiff A filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on July 9, 2014.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

1) The Plaintiff’s presentA lent KRW 000,000,000 to the inheritee and KRW 000,000,000 in total, and KRW 000,000,000,00. The instant money was not received as a gift since it was received as a repayment for the loan.

2) At least KRW 000,000,000 used for the repayment of an inheritee’s loans and KRW 000,000,000,000, which is confirmed to have been paid to the Corporation under the name of the inheritee, should be recognized as a loan, as there are materials proving this.

3) With respect to the portion of the construction cost paid by Plaintiff A, as the actual owner of the building, the portion equivalent to the share of the building was registered in title with the inheritee, but the title trust agreement was terminated and returned, and thus, it should be excluded from the value of inherited property.

B. Facts of recognition

1) On September 11, 1971, the decedent acquired HH-si II 000 square meters of land for factory, and donated the land to the Plaintiff on November 30, 1984. On June 26, 1995, the decedent sold the said land to KRW 0,000,000,000 among them, and received KRW 0,00,000,000 from the J bank account under the name of the Plaintiff’s name, and the details of the deposit and withdrawal of the J bank account are as follows.

2) On July 8, 1994, the decedent obtained a loan of KRW 00,000,000 from the NN Savings Bank Co., Ltd., and repaid the loan amount on June 28, 1995.

3) On April 7, 1989, the decedent acquired FKK LLdong 110-2 41.6 square meters, and the building owner from February 28, 1996 to October 7, 1996 was the decedent, the Si Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “M comprehensive construction”), and the construction cost was 701,704,000 won and registered in its name.

4) On June 28, 1996, the sum of the face value of the check issued by the Plaintiff A on June 28, 1996 KRW 00,00,000 was paid as construction cost for the MM comprehensive construction on June 28, 1996.

5) The details of Plaintiff JA’s withdrawal from the J bank account and payment of construction costs are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is presumed to have received KRW 00,00,000 from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account, barring special circumstances, such as that the instant money was transferred for another purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

2) On June 26, 1995, the Plaintiff’s presentA withdrawn KRW 000,000,000 out of the real estate purchase price, and as seen earlier, the inheritee’s loans were repaid on June 28, 1995. Employees of the NN Savings Bank Co., Ltd., which had been in charge of an inheritee’s lending business prior to 20 years, submitted a written confirmation (Evidence A) that the decedent is memoryd with the repayment of the loan by selling real estate under the name of the inheritee on June 28, 1995 (Evidence A).

However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to view that Plaintiff A was not a donation but a loan to the inheritee for the repayment of the inheritee’s loans.

In addition, there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the instant money was paid for the repayment of the said loan (the time of transfer of each money also differs from that of 1995 and 2008).

3) The fact that the Plaintiff’s presentA sold real estate donated by the inheritee on June 26, 1995, and then received KRW 0,000,000,000 from May 23, 1995 to December 26, 1995 from around December 23, 1995, and withdrawn KRW 0,00,000 from its own account. The check issued by the Plaintiff’s presentA was paid as construction cost. The amount and time of the check withdrawn by the Plaintiff’s presentA was identical or adjacent to a part of the construction cost and payment date.

However, it is difficult to view that the construction cost of the inheritee was paid between February 28, 1996 and October 7, 1996, and the said construction cost was paid with the funds withdrawn from the above purchase price, such as having been different from the time of withdrawal of the above purchase price. In addition, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s presentA lent the said construction cost, not with the donation to the inheritee. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant money was paid for the repayment of the said construction cost (the time of transfer of each money also differs from that of 1995 and 2008).

4) In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff’s presentA lent the construction price to the inheritee, and that there is no circumstance to see that the decedent is the owner of the instant building, the sole nominal owner, and that the decedent and the Plaintiff’s presentA had a title trust agreement between the decedent and the decedent, the assertion that the Plaintiff’s presentA trusted the decedent to the degree of the construction price borne by the decedent

5) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

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