logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2011.12.08 2011구합20505
증여세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff”) passed the 18th National Assembly member election, which was held on April 9, 2008 from March 28, 2008 to April 9, 2008, received KRW 1.6 billion in total from C, KRW 1.5 billion in total from E, KRW 1.21 billion in total, KRW 3.21 billion in total from C, and KRW 1.20 million in total from C, and KRW 3.21 million in total from C, which was reported to the election commission, through the Plaintiff’s deposit account for revenues of political funds, and thereafter received from the National Election Commission on June 5, 2008 to return KRW 30 million in total from C, KRW 1.50 million in total from March 28, 2008 to April 9, 2008.

B. On July 19, 2010, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 683,75,00,000 on KRW 1.5 billion received from D, KRW 632,684,560, and KRW 100,000,00 on KRW 1.5 billion received from E, on the ground that the instant money constitutes “political funds other than political funds under paragraph (1),” which are subject to gift tax under Article 76(3) of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Act No. 921, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Special Act”), respectively, on July 19, 2010, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 14,251,500, KRW 30,711,060 on KRW 1.50,000 received from C.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”), in total,

The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 2010 on August 20, 201, but was dismissed on April 14, 201.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition of imposition of the instant case is unlawful for the following reasons.

① The instant money was borrowed from D, E, and C as the Plaintiff requires the 18th National Assembly member election funds, and thereafter, the said money was thereafter borrowed according to the agreement at the time of borrowing.

arrow