Seocho 2010west 1742 (2010.09)

Appropriateness of the disposition imposed on the property subject to advance donation;

Although it is alleged that it was repaid to the decedent as a loan for consumption of money borrowed from the decedent with the property of advance donation, it is difficult to believe that the assertion is contradictory and consistent.

2010Guhap41314 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

BAA

Head of Eastern Tax Office

August 30, 2011

October 13, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant's imposition of 1,831,90 won in excess of 1,831, and 907 won in the imposition of 45,671, and 380 won in respect of the plaintiff and the imposition of 1,831, and 74,244, and 518 won in excess of 1,831,907 won in the imposition of 1,831, and 380 won in respect of the plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 19, 2003, the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) donated a neighborhood living facility located in 000-00 located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and reported and paid gift tax of KRW 88,469,920 to the Defendant at that time with the value of donated property of KRW 557,66,390. After the death on February 8, 2008 of the deceased, the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the deceased’s property on August 5, 2008, reported and paid inheritance tax to the Defendant on August 5, 2008 (the amount of inheritance tax for the Plaintiff is KRW 102,183,277).

B. As a result of the investigation into the deceased's inherited property on June 16, 2009, the Defendant confirmed that the amount of KRW 190 million was deposited from the one bank account under the deceased's name on April 16, 2003 and then deposited the same amount into the bank account under the name of the plaintiff on the following day. On April 17, 2003, the Plaintiff deemed that the deceased was donated in advance from the deceased on April 17, 2003, and added this amount to the taxable value of inherited property, the Plaintiff corrected and notified the inheritance tax of KRW 45671,380 on December 1, 209, and the Plaintiff corrected and notified the gift tax of KRW 3080,000 on January 8, 2010 and the gift tax of KRW 400,000 on the gift tax of KRW 190,000 on the gift tax of KRW 300,000,000,000 under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 2363014.7.7.14.7.7.404.

C. On February 16, 2010, the Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition, but was dismissed. On May 19, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on August 9, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 8-1, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 16, 2003, the Plaintiff received KRW 190 million from the Deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the instant money”) from the Deceased on July 2, 2002, and KRW 170,100,000,000 from the Deceased was temporarily borrowed from the Deceased. Since then, the Plaintiff terminated and withdraws the total of KRW 166,00,000,000 in the deposit claims of the Plaintiff, the wife, and sonG, and repaid the said borrowed money with the said money. Accordingly, the portion of the instant money (i.e., KRW 190,000,000,000 + KRW 1.9,000 + KRW 166,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 won, should be revoked on the ground that it constitutes donated property.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) Generally, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in the facts of taxation in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit are revealed, unless the other party proves the circumstances that the pertinent facts at issue cannot be subject to the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 200

2) In the instant case, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff received the instant money from his father on April 17, 2003. As to whether the Plaintiff was paid KRW 19 million out of the instant money to the Deceased on July 2, 2002 as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 19 million to the bank account in the name of the Deceased on July 2, 2002. However, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 6 and KRW 8 to KRW 19 million to the bank account in the name of the Deceased on July 2, 2002. However, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 6, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 19 million to the above KRW 70,000,000,000 from KRW 19,000,000,000,000,000 from KRW 19,000,000,000,000 from KRW 97,00,00.

3) The following facts and circumstances are as follows: (i) the Plaintiff’s 100 million won and 100,000 won were 0,000 won borrowed from the deceased, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 6,000,000 won were 6,000,000 won were 0,000,000,000 won were 0,000,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000 won were 0,000,000 won were 0,000 won were 7,000 won were 6,00 won were 6,000 won were 6,000 won were 6,00.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.