Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-68676 (Law No. 15, 07.03)

The key issue amount of this case that the Plaintiff received as his father's earned income from his workplace is insufficient evidence.

Although the plaintiff submitted a written confirmation prepared by the employees who provided labor to his father's workplace, such confirmation alone is insufficient to admit the amount the plaintiff received from his father's workplace as wages.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu53130 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

- Appellants

AA

00 Si 00-Gu 00 00, 00 Dong 00

Law Firm 00

Attorney 000

The Director of the sericultural Tax Office

Litigation performers 000

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap68676 decided July 3, 2015

October 20, 2015

November 24, 2015

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

On January 9, 2014, the Defendant rendered a judgment revoking the imposition of gift tax of KRW 363,302,100 against the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of Plaintiff’s appeal

The judgment of the first instance is to be modified in the same manner as the purport of the claim.

3. Purport of defendant's appeal

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation shall be dismissed.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant imposed KRW 363,313,394 on the Plaintiff’s father BB from 2004 to 2010 on gift tax of KRW 363,302,10 on the ground that the Plaintiff was donated (hereinafter “instant disposition”); (b) the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 2, 2014, but dismissed on July 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on September 29, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Benefits of 34,366,846 won deposited from the account of BB to the CCC account is merely a business entity (000,000,000,000, 000, and 000) operated by BB and was paid by the Plaintiff using the CCC account from D and not a donation from BB.

2) Of the total amount of KRW 321,946,548 withdrawn or transferred from the accounts of BB, the amount of KRW 28,50,000 (the dispute amount ②) and KRW 48,206,00 (the dispute amount ③) used as the study fund of GGG, shall not be deemed to have been donated to the Plaintiff even though the amount of KRW 28,50,000 (the dispute amount) used as the study fund of the GG was deemed to have been donated to the FF or GG, and the remainder of KRW 245,240,548 (the dispute amount ②) was used by the Plaintiff for the purchase of the equipment, etc. requested by BB under the direction of BB, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff.

3) The sum total of KRW 70,000,000 deposited into the Plaintiff’s account was received by the Plaintiff as the increase in the deposit for lease on a deposit basis from the lessee, received by the Plaintiff as the personal monetary transaction with HH, or received the equipment for the accident according to the instructions of BB, and did not receive any donation from BB.

B. Determination

1) In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 3, and 4, the fact that the sum of KRW 34,366,846 in the account in the name of CCC was transferred from the account of BB to the account in the name of CCC. In the business entity operated by BB, the above amount was accounted for as payment to CCC. However, CCC did not have worked in the private business entity operated by BB and was merely lent only in the name of the account. The fact that BB was located in 00,000 military units or 00 but the Plaintiff was employed as a professor, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that BB paid money to the Plaintiff for other purposes, such as the purchase of equipment, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the above money was donated by the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 201).

2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the Plaintiff’s management of the account Nos. 2 and 4: (a) withdrawn KRW 321,946,548 in total from January 23, 2007 to November 5, 2007, or transferred to another account; (b) most of the above transactions were made at the Plaintiff’s company’s 00:00 or 0000 with the place of work; (c) examining the details of the account No. 2 of the above BB, there were 00 travels and 84 years of age at the time; (d) given that the Plaintiff used the money that the Plaintiff released from the account No. 2B’s account; or that there was insufficient data to recognize that the Plaintiff was either withdrawn from the account No. 2B’s transfer from the said account or received from the other account No. 2.

However, the above 321,946,548 won includes 07.0G 20 G 20G 20G 20,000 won from the above BB 207 to the account of 20G 10,006, BB 100,000 won, and 9,500,000 won, which were transferred on February 12, 2007 to 07.0G 207,00 won, each of the above 20G 207,00 won should not be deemed to have completely lost control over the above BB 9.2G 207,00 won, and it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff transferred 20G 207,000 won to the above 0G 207,00 won, 207,00 won, 207,07G 20.2G 307,07,000 won.

3) According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 7, it is recognized that the sum of KRW 90,000,000 from the account of BB from October 15, 2004 to August 26, 2005 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account at the same time on the same day. It is reasonable to deem that BB was donated to the Plaintiff in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was managing the Plaintiff’s account; (b) otherwise, KRW 70,000,000 deposited in the Plaintiff’s account was paid by the tenant as a deposit increase in the deposit; or (c) there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was receiving the cost of the accident in accordance with the direction of BB; and (b) the equipment was paid by BB.

(c) The tax amount cancelled;

Therefore, the part exceeding KRW 9,484,446 of the gift tax calculated by the defendant as stated in the latter part of Paragraph 2 of the above Article and the part exceeding KRW 31,30,93 of the gift tax calculated in excess of KRW 42,310,93 of the gift tax and the part exceeding KRW 31,300,933 of the gift tax shall be revoked, and the remainder of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and all appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.