It is difficult to recognize the donation only by agreement, and it shall not be deemed that the donation was received in 1/3.

The agreement of this case alone is not sufficient to deem the plaintiffs to have received the agreement of this case from the Korea Commercial Code or the Newdong-style Housing, and there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiffs received the "1/3 of the agreement of this case" among the agreement of this case.

Article 2(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Suwon District Court 2017Guhap65679

The plaintiffs had the intent to donate the agreed amount, and the plaintiffs had the interest from Han Han-sung or New Crho family.

It is difficult to see that there was an intention to receive a donation of the agreed amount, and otherwise, the plaintiffs s00 or new

There is no evidence to deem that the instant agreement was donated by C's family.

Rather, the evidence acknowledged earlier and the record of Gap evidence No. 5

in full view of the following circumstances, the agreement of this case k00 and s00 de facto

division of property or a person who has been admitted to k00 under the U.S. law as a result of the termination of the

It is reasonable to see that the payment was made as remuneration, and it is reasonable to see that the defendant's assertion that the s00 or new weather family was the purpose of donation to Kim Jong-family including the plaintiffs.

shall not be effective.

1. The parties to the agreement in this case to the agreement at the last part of the head of the agreement in this case k0

In order to resolve the consolation money lawsuit of this case filed against s00, whether it is valid and binding.

The agreement of this case is k00 as it is written that it has executory power.

The consolation money lawsuit of this case was filed while the lawsuit was pending, and the case was brought.

It seems that k00 money is paid in relation to the consolation money lawsuit (tax appeal).

In the case of the imposition of gift tax on Wondo k00, the fact that the agreement in this case is not a gift

As seen earlier, the consolation money was judged as a group following the resolution of divorce.

2. A written agreement of this case states that the plaintiffs renounced inheritance against s00

Even if there is the defendant's assertion, the plaintiffs give up their inheritance to s00.

part in agreement, the plaintiffs' share in total property held by s00

The amount of the instant agreement shall be calculated by generally reflecting the estimated amount of the corresponding agreement;

to any extent that the plaintiffs are entitled to receive their shares from s00 or new family members;

the agreement of this case and all the documents submitted by the defendant as well as the agreement of this case

Nor is there any circumstance to find out.

3. The agreement of this case is signed by s00 (s00 as a guardian’s new Dong-style is a legal representative.

on the other hand, the spouse ka of sa, not only as a member of a new weather family, but also as a member of sa, sb, and s0, not as an heir of s00

§ 400, Sa, Sb, Sb, Sa, ka as a member of a new family

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff signed the instant agreement, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to donate the instant agreement to Kim Yong-family. As such, on the ground that the Plaintiffs signed the instant agreement, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiffs were in the status of receiving partial donation of the instant agreement. Ultimately, the instant agreement cannot be concluded that the Plaintiffs were in the status of receiving a donation of the portion of the instant agreement. Ultimately, the instant agreement’s “new weather family” payment of the instant agreement to Kim Jong-family.

Terms and conditions of this case as stated in the FamIly Governing Provisions shall be the amount agreed upon at s00 Tru to k00

It is reasonable to understand to the extent that the payment is to be made.

4. Under the premise that the agreement in this case was paid four times, the defendant shall conclude the agreement in this case.

s00 if the date prior to the death of s00 the due date and the actual death date of s00, the donor was deemed to have been the donor, and s00 after the death of s00

on the date stated that payment has been made in a document submitted to the court of the State, d00 shall be regarded as donor.

In the instant disposition, the instant disposition was issued, and there was no material showing that the agreement was actually paid on the scheduled date of payment stipulated in the instant agreement (as seen earlier, the material showing that the agreement was paid was submitted to the U.S. court, but the material showing that the agreement was actually paid on the scheduled date of payment) and that the subject of the donation would vary depending on s00 death or not by the agreement of this case.

It is also difficult to understand.

2) The Plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have received a donation of 1/3 of the instant agreed amount.

The evidence presented by the Defendant alone that the Plaintiffs donated 1/3 of the agreed amount of this case to the Plaintiffs.

The defendant's assertion to the purport is insufficient to admit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the evidence acknowledged earlier and the evidence No. 5, and No. 10

In full view of the following circumstances known by entry, the agreement amount of this case by the plaintiffs

In addition, even if there is a part received, it cannot be deemed as 1/3 of the instant agreement.

1. The written agreement of this case is that "new weather family shall pay the instant agreed money to Kim Jong-si's family."

There is no basis to deem that k0 and k00 were to receive the instant agreement in 1/3. Rather, as seen earlier, k00 did not state that 'the instant agreement shall be paid to 3 members of the Kim Yong family members at the rate of 1/3.'

The agreement of this case is reached following the filing of a material suit, k00 s00 and about 31 years

At the time of the agreement of this case, s00 were surviving.

In light of the foregoing, it is deemed that the agreement of this case was scheduled to be paid to k00 mainly;

The plaintiffs and k00 wished to receive the instant agreement at the same rate.

In the event that the agreement of this case was reached, the agreement of this case was reached at the same time as k00.

1/3 If the right to be paid has been proposed to be held by one-third, the side on which such obligation is payable (s00).

Trust or new family members) shares to be paid to the plaintiffs and k00, respectively, (1/3)

In order to clarify the urgency, such purport was specified in the agreement of this case.

In addition, it is expressed that the plaintiff and k00 were 'the plaintiff's family members.

However, the agreement of this case is legally separate subject of rights, and such agreement of this case

The payment of the instant agreement is also made in such a manner, without stating the purport thereof.

I seem to have not shown.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the Defendant, the Plaintiffs were 1/3 of the agreed amount.

There is no evidence to know that the trust administrator was receiving. Rather, in the case of Trust accounting data submitted to the U.S. court on July 8, 2010, “ k00” on November 9, 2009 under the instant agreement.

It is merely stated that US$ 949,281.71 was paid. According to this, this case

The amount of agreement is deemed to have been paid to k00, not the plaintiffs.

3. Although the amount of the agreement of this case is not specified, the defendant did not pay the agreement of this case to the plaintiffs.

The details of financial transactions, etc. that could prove that they were supplied, were not submitted at all.

C. In addition, if the plaintiffs were actually paid the instant agreed money, the assets were increased after the date of receiving the agreed money claimed by the defendant. Since the agreement of this case, the plaintiffs did not acquire the real estate in Korea (No. 4-9 of the evidence No. 4, k00 of the evidence No. 4 of this case).

There is no data that the financial assets of the plaintiffs increased.

4. The defendant was actually paid as donee the plaintiffs and k00 under the agreement of this case

Pursuant to Article 408 of the Civil Act, Plaintiffs and k00 of the instant case on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the amount.

If it is presumed that one-third of the agreed amount has been received, the donor's family members also shall be the donor's family members.

Although it comes to the conclusion that the gift was made in proportion to the number of members, the Defendant appears to have a contradictory attitude that only s00 or d00 is understood as the donor (the donor is the second tax liability).

Since it is a person, it is necessary to clarify the donor and gift amount.

3) Conclusion

The agreement of this case alone is solely based on the agreement of this case from s00 or d00

It is difficult to see that “donation” was received, and there is no evidence to see that the Plaintiffs received “1/3 of the instant agreed amount” from among the instant agreed amount. The instant disposition was taken in the absence of the grounds for disposition, which is the taxation requirement of gift tax, and thus, should be revoked as it is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and all of them are accepted.

Republic of Korea 00 1

000 director of the tax office

June 7, 2018

July 19, 2018

1. On March 2, 2016, the Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiffs is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are the same as the order of the Gu office to which the defendant is liable.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiffs are children born between s00 and k00. s00 maintained a de facto marriage relationship between k00 and 31 years, even though they were in a legal marital relationship with d00. Children born between s00 and d0 are sa, sb, and s. The household level of s00 is as follows:

B. Around October 2002, S00 was used as s02 s02 s00 and was in an unknown state for several years. around April 2004, k0 filed an application with the State of California (hereinafter “U.”) to appoint himself as a s00 administrator. However, the U.S. court designated 00 s0 k as a s0 administrator.

C. On September 14, 2004, the Seoul Family Court rendered a judgment of incompetency against s00. Accordingly, d00, a legal spouse, was s00’s guardian (see Article 934 of the Civil Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 10429, Mar. 7, 201) and managed s00’s property.

D. On October 2004, k0 filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of consolation money (hereinafter referred to as "the lawsuit of this case") against s00 and s00 administrators of s00 and s00, and d00 et al. in a de facto marital relationship with k0. In addition to the lawsuit of this case, k00 and d00 and sa sab, sb, ka (hereinafter referred to as "new family") and their children, filed several applications with the U.S. court for the management and distribution of s0 assets held by s00.

E. On April 14, 2006, in the process of the instant lawsuit for consolation money, an agreement was concluded between the Kim C&C family and the new C&C family as shown in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). In order to resolve all judicial disputes between the Kim C&C family and the new C&C family, new C&C family must pay 7 million US dollars (hereinafter “instant agreement”) to Kim C&C family as follows, and Kim C&C family decided to waive all rights to property of s00 US dollars including consolation money and inheritance rights (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On the end of the head of the written agreement prepared at the time of the instant agreement (hereinafter “the agreement”), the parties entered that the agreement in this case was valid to resolve the instant lawsuit for consolation money, with binding force, and that k00 family and family members have executory power as well as that they signed and signed the agreement of 00 USC as the new agreement (hereinafter “the agreement”).

F. The U.S. court approved the instant agreement on August 4, 2006. On the other hand, s0 trust and will were approved, and ordered the trust administrator to execute the trust on behalf of s0, and s00 to transfer all the property of s0 to s.00." On August 8, 2008, s. 00 were deceased on the premise that the new family members were 60,000 US dollars and 10,000 US dollars were 10,000,000,000 dollars 20,000,000 won were 10,000,000,000,000 dollars 20,000,0000,000 won were 10,000,000,000,000 dollars 2,000,000,000 won were 10,000,000,000.

(k) On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Plaintiffs on April 28, 2017. Meanwhile, the Defendant also filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal on May 30, 2016, on the same day as the date the instant disposition was issued, and on the same day as the date the instant disposition was issued, the Defendant filed an appeal seeking revocation of the said disposition. The Tax Tribunal received 1/3 of the instant amount on April 28, 2017, but it is recognized that k0 received 1/3 of the instant amount, but it is reasonable to revoke the instant disposition on the premise that the instant disposition was revoked on the ground that the instant disposition was revoked on the ground that d00 upon the outbreak of de facto de facto marriage for about 300 and about 31 years, a guardian of s00, thereby having been subject to revocation of the instant disposition.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 shall be as listed in attached Table 3.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The instant agreement shall be paid from s00 property to k0 a property division or consolation money due to resolution of de facto marital relationship. The Plaintiffs do not receive donations from s00 or s.m. family members. Moreover, the Plaintiffs did not actually receive money from s00 or s.m. family members, and the Defendant issued the instant disposition of imposition without any ground that the Plaintiffs received 1/3 of the instant agreement amount, and thus, the instant disposition of imposition was unlawful.

B. Determination

1) It is difficult to recognize donations to the Plaintiffs solely by the instant agreement.

At the time of the agreement of this case, the plaintiffs renounced inheritance against s00 at the time of the agreement of this case (However, since s00 still exists at the time of the agreement of this case, this is no longer effective under our Civil Act as a waiver of inheritance that was made before the commencement of inheritance), and the plaintiffs signed the agreement of this case. However, the contract of this case is premised on the agreement between the donor and the donee as a juristic act to transfer the property free of charge to the donee, which is a juristic act by the donor, which is a juristic act by the donor to transfer the property free of charge, and the above circumstance alone is a donor,