Seoul Administrative Court-2018-Gu Partnership-7348 ( October 17, 2019)

Whether the money transferred by the decedent to the plaintiff constitutes a pre-donation (state acceptance)

(1) It is reasonable to deem that the decedent’s donation was not made to the Plaintiff, but to the extent that the decedent’s donation was made to the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff and the decedent were to have a married couple, due to convenience of community life, entrustment and management of the decedent’s funds, or payment of living expenses.

Article 13 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Taxable Value of Inherited Property)

2019Nu46383. Recoursea for revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax

AA

a) the Director of the Tax Office

August 22, 2019

September 26, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition on March 27, 2015, rendered against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2017, rendered against the Plaintiff, is revoked. The disposition of imposition by the Plaintiff on March 27, 2015 (including additional tax, and KRW 135,188,656 as stated in the purport of the claim in the judgment of the first instance court).

1. cite of the reasons for the written judgment in the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court regarding this case is as follows, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ The reasons for the judgment of the first instance court are as follows: 5-3 to 7 lines.

① On April 10, 2008, the amount of KRW 230,011,521 was transferred from the Defendant’s Cit Bank account to the Plaintiff’s account. Of them, the Plaintiff withdrawn and consumed KRW 30 million on April 29, 2008, and then withdrawn KRW 150,000 on May 15, 2008, and used KRW 50,000 as the purchase fund for financial investment instruments under the Plaintiff’s name.

② At the time of reporting inheritance tax to the tax authority, the Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 100 million out of KRW 230,011,521 stated in paragraph (1) as the property donated to the decedent in advance.

2. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.