Cho Jae-2012-Seoul Government-4346 (28. 2013)

Money paid by the deceased is not a donation, but is not a return of the land sale price.

It is reasonable to view the cash received from the father who was the deceased as the donation in the first place, and then claim it as the return of the purchase price of the deceased's land after the return, but in many circumstances, it is reasonable to view it as the donation.

Article 47 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act: Taxable Value of Gift Tax

The Seoul Administrative Court-2013-Gu Partnership-24037 Revocation of Disposition Rejecting Gift Tax Correction

IsaA

s. Head of the tax office

April 1, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s refusal to rectify KRW 32,40,00 for the gift tax of KRW 200 for the year 200,000 for the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. After receiving KRW 260,00,000 in cash from the deceased BB (O.O.O.O. and father; hereinafter “the deceased”), the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 32,400,000,000, which is 200 O.O.O.O. gift tax.

B. After that, the Plaintiff filed a claim for correction with the purport that “The Defendant” did not make a donation to the Plaintiff by the Deceased, but that it returned part of the purchase price of O-O.O.O.O.O.O. (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Plaintiff, which was received by the Deceased, to the Plaintiff again returned to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant rejected the Plaintiff’s claim onO.O.O.O. (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal against the instant disposition on 20O.O.O., but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on 20O.O.O., respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including various numbers for each type of evidence), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not receive a donation from the Deceased, but received a refund of part of the purchase price of the instant land, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition on the premise that the Plaintiff received a donation from the Deceased, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Fact of recognition;

1) The Deceased purchased the instant land under the name of the Plaintiff, 20O.O.O.O., and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff.O., the Plaintiff.

2) The Plaintiff was granted a loan of 300 million won from the 200O.O.O.O. c Saemaul Savings Depository, and completed the registration of creation of collateral security in the name of the c Saemaul Savings Depository for the instant land of KRW 390 million.

3) Meanwhile, the deceased entered into a sales contract between 20O.O.O.O., 230 won and 1,576,131,330 won to sell the instant land under the Plaintiff’s name (the deceased entered into a sales contract between d.O., 200.O., O., V Hospital site; (2) the instant land; (3) the O-O-O land, such as O-O land, DongO-O-O land, and (3) the deceased’s name and the same O-O land; (4) the same O-O land; (4) the O-O land; and (3) the O-O-O land; and (4) the O-O-O land; (27,230,660 won and the intermediate payment were deposited in d. D., Seoul; and (3) the Plaintiff paid the remainder of the land under the name of the Plaintiff; and (4) the Plaintiff paid the down payment and the intermediate payment.

4) Accordingly, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Down remitted KRW 257,537,060 to the e bank passbook and intermediate payment under the name of the Plaintiff on the date of the said contract, and after the repayment of KRW 301,63,970 to the cc community credit cooperative, the said establishment registration was cancelled, and the money was remitted KRW 1,016,960,300 to the head of the said passbook under the name of the Plaintiff. In addition, the instant land was transferred under the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City DD onO.O. 200.

5) Meanwhile, the amount of KRW 257,547,060 from the head of the e bank in the name of the Plaintiff to the account of the Deceased was transferred from 20O.O.O. head of the e bank in the name of the Plaintiff to the account of the Deceased.

6) The Plaintiff prepared a written confirmation to the Deceased 20O.O.O. and prepared to the Deceased that, as the instant land was originally owned by the Deceased and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff for convenience, all rights to the purchase price are vested in the Deceased.

7) The Plaintiff paid KRW 305,841,815 of the transfer income tax following the transfer of the instant land at O.O. around 200.

8) As the Deceased’s title trust against the Plaintiff on 20O.O., the Deceased filed a lawsuit claiming for the return of KRW 1,274,497,975, which is the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s debt by subrogation in lieu of the payment of the purchase price of the instant land and KRW 301,63,970,576,131,945, which is the sum of KRW 1,537,537,06,00, which is the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s debt by subrogation in lieu of the payment of the purchase price of the instant land, with the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment of KRW 1,318,594,85, which is the remainder of KRW 257,537,060, which was already withdrawn from the said passbook, with the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 305,841,816, and resident tax, KRW 30,584,181, which was paid or payable by the Plaintiff in the above amount of the Plaintiff’s 20700.

9) The court of first instance determined that the land of this case was in title trust to the Plaintiff by the deceased, and that the Plaintiff unjust enrichment was made by the deceased’s claim in the principal lawsuit, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s counterclaim.

10) The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above judgment and appealed with Seoul High Court 2010OOO, and the 20O.O.O., between the Deceased and the Plaintiff, the following adjustments were established:

1. Each of the following facts are confirmed: (a) the Deceased and the Plaintiff: (b) KRW 1 billion in 1990; and (c) KRW 982,168,888 as cited in the judgment of the first instance court of this case.

2. The plaintiff agrees to reflect each amount described in paragraph 1 in calculating the share of inheritance and the reserve of inheritance.

3. The deceased’s principal claim and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim are all waived.

4. The costs of the lawsuit total and the costs of the lawsuit principal lawsuit shall be borne by the deceased, and the costs of the counterclaim shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

11) The Deceased remitted 260,000,000 won to the Plaintiff’sff bank account (Account Number 483-O-O-O-O-O).

12) 망인은 20OO. O. O. 장남인 원고에게 260,000,000원을 송금한 것 이외에도, (1)원고의 배우자인 김GG에게 250,000,000원을, (2) 차남인 망 이HH의 배우자 김II에게 220,000,000원, 망 이HH의 자녀인 이JJ에게 210,000,000원, 망 이HH의 자녀인 이KK에게 210,000,000원을, (3) 삼남인 이LL의 배우자인 이MM에게 500,000,000원, 이LL의 자녀인 이QQ에게 350,000,000원(이와는 별도로 망인은 20OO. O. O. 이우열에게 500,000,000원을 증여하였다). (4) 사남인 이NN에게 650,000,000원을, (5) 오남인 이PP에게 600,000,000원을 각 증여하였고, 망인의 상속인들은 상속세 신고시 이 사건 금원을 포함하여 망인의 사전증여재산을 산정하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 4-3, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances, (1) ownership transfer registration of the deceased was completed in the name of the deceased as to the land of this case, i.e., (2) it was merely a title trust registered in the name of the deceased, and the plaintiff voluntarily prepared a confirmation document that the land of this case is within the name of the deceased as it was originally owned by the deceased for convenience, and thus, all rights to the purchase price should be vested in the deceased. (2) The plaintiff received 257,537,060 won as down payment and intermediate payment from d office of Seoul Special Metropolitan City and d office and received 2000,000,000 won, including the above money, from 50,000,000 won, from 200,000,000 won, and 257,457,060,060 won, and it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff received the remaining money from 10,000,000 won from 20,000 won.

Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(c)