Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap6056 ( October 25, 2012)

Cho High Court Decision 201Do2804 ( November 21, 2011)

It is reasonable to view that there is no agreement on payment of interest as a donation.

(1) If the Plaintiff asserts that the loan is a loan, but there is no certificate of loan, and if the loan is a loan to the Plaintiff, it is common that the interest would be paid on a regular basis, but there is no interest paid, and it is reasonable to deem that the loan is a gift on the ground that there is no security, etc.

2012Nu18150 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Shin XX

Samsung Head of Samsung Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap6056 decided May 25, 2012

November 21, 2012

December 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on April 1, 201 by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s judgment that reads “the fourth first installment” as the food company on April 1, 2011, which is the fifth below below the second instance judgment; and (b) the fourth first installment as the term “the food company” is the same as the corresponding part of the first instance judgment. In accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the corresponding part shall be cited.

The Plaintiff asserts that the key issue amount in this case is merely a loan from XX unemployment and that it is not a donation from new ones. However, with respect to the key issue amount of this case from 000 won to 000 won, the Plaintiff did not prepare any written form, including a loan certificate, and did not have any data that the Plaintiff agreed to interest or paid interest. Furthermore, in full view of the fact that the key issue amount in this case was returned after the corporate entity’s consolidated investigation into XX unemployment, that the Plaintiff’s attached company appears to have de facto controlled x unemployment and O development, and that the relationship between the above company’s financial situation and the Plaintiff, etc., the key issue amount in this case is to be deemed to have been donated from PA. The Plaintiff’s donation from the PA. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (including the testimony of the witness KimCC at the trial) is not acceptable. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.