Seocho 2015west 4858 ( November 25, 2015)

Insurance premiums paid in the amount deposited in the name account of the father shall be applicable to the donation.

The capital cost of the instant insurance premium was paid out in the name account of the father, etc. Therefore, the father’s payment of the insurance premium to the Plaintiff is equivalent to the donation.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Guhap5247 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

○ ○

AA Head of the Tax Office

March 31, 2017

May 12, 2017

1. The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 20,603,60 on January 31, 2012 against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015, in excess of KRW 13,322,610, among the imposition of gift tax of KRW 20,603,60, shall be revoked.

2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 49/50 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and 1/50 by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

It is as shown in the attached Form.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From October 2, 2014 to January 6, 2015, the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into the source of funds against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s insurance premium of KRW 1.6 billion among the Plaintiff’s property is not verified. According to the process of paying the insurance premium, the key 1 insurance premium as listed in the following table was deposited in the AA bank account, etc. of Lee○○ (the Plaintiff’s father), and the key 2 insurance premium was collected from Lee○○’s account, the Plaintiff, ○○ (the Plaintiff’s spouse), ○○ (the Plaintiff’s spouse’s spouse), and ○○○ (the Plaintiff’s spouse’s spouse’s spouse), the premium was collected from the BB bank account in the name of Lee○○○○○’s name, and the key 3 insurance premium was paid from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff who managed the income of the ○○ parent’s 4, and notified the Defendant of such payment.

B. On March 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) deemed that ○○○ donated the pertinent insurance premium to the Plaintiff; and (b) determined and notified the gift tax of KRW 783,561,410 in total to the Plaintiff as indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 8, 2015 upon filing an objection on May 15, 2015, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 25, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) The key 2 insurance premium was not paid out of the account opened in the name of Lee○○○, the Plaintiff, Park Il-○, Park Jong-○, Park Jong-○, and Choi○○○, but was paid out of the Plaintiff’s funds or paid out of the fees by an insurance solicitor. Even if the key 2 insurance premium was paid in the above account, the account opened in the name of the Plaintiff, Jung○, Park Il-○, Park Il-○, and Choi○-○ was paid out of the Plaintiff’s account rather than the borrowed name account of Lee○○, or deposited money in the Plaintiff’s account with the Plaintiff’s borrowed name account with the Plaintiff’s borrowed name account. Even if this was considered as a donation, the time of donation cannot be deemed as the time when two insurance premium was paid out of the above account

2) Key 3 Insurance premiums are not deposited from the account of Lee○○○, but paid out with the Plaintiff’s funds.

3) Key 4 Insurance premiums were transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the future by an insurance solicitor, and the Plaintiff paid with the Plaintiff’s funds.

B. Determination

1) As to the key 2 insurance premium

In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence 5 through 13, Eul evidence 21-1 through 7, Eul evidence 2-2-3-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10-1 through 4, Eul evidence 15-1 and 2, Eul evidence 16-1 through 4, Eul evidence 17-1, 2, Eul evidence 18-2, and Eul evidence 18 through 21, Eul evidence 8-1, part of Eul evidence 8-1, and whole arguments, it is reasonable to view that Eul evidence 2-2 and this part of this part of this case's insurance premium was paid out by the plaintiff's account and this part of this case's insurance premium was paid out by the plaintiff's second account.

1. ○○○○○. 22.200. 200. 20. 20. 12. 12. 30. 12. 30. 21. 2005. 22. 37,465,50. ** 701* * 150,00 * * * 100,00 * * * * * 150,00 * * * * * * * 15,00 * * * * * * * 150,00 * * * * * * * 1500 * * * * * * * * 1465,00 * * * * * * 17010 * * * * * * 2017 * * * *

② On December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff also affixed a signature and seal on the confirmation document stating that “○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” (which was a part of the principal’s funds) was used for the FF life insurance premium, etc. in the name of the principal and his spouse.” In the instant complaint, the Plaintiff stated that “○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 483,070,169 deposited KRW 483,070 from EE bank on January 9, 2004, deposited KRW 50 billion in the name of the principal, KRW 135,00,000, KRW 13500,000, KRW 5005,000, KRW 2505,000, KRW 2505,000.

③ On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s DNA securities account under the name of ○○○○, i.e., the Plaintiff’s account, or the Plaintiff’s borrowed account, rather than the Plaintiff’s borrowed name account, and that it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s account was not the Plaintiff’s borrowed name account, and that the Plaintiff’s account was the Plaintiff’s borrowed name account, and that it would avoid the instant disposition on account of different donation periods, and that the Plaintiff’s source of insurance premium paid by ○○, an insurance solicitor acting on behalf of ○○○, cannot be known. Therefore, the content of the written statement prepared by ○○, which alone, is insufficient to support the Plaintiff’s assertion. Considering that the Plaintiff opened the passbook at the request of ○○○, such as the written statement in the above written statement of confirmation, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the basis that the Plaintiff’

④ The key two premiums are consistent with the fact that the Plaintiff received a donation from ○○○○, as in the first insurance premium, that the premium was paid through an insurance solicitor by withdrawing in cash from the withdrawing account. This seems to have been an old method of insurance premium payment by ○○, who did not account transfer.

⑤ In accordance with the statement in Eul’s evidence No. 5, there is no evidence to support that the time when cash was deposited in the D Securities Account in the name of the plaintiff, Jung-○, Jung-○, Jung-○, Jung-○, and the time when cash was deposited in the D Securities Account in the name of the plaintiff and the insurance-related two insurance premiums in the name of the plaintiff was paid in cash, and otherwise, the said deposited money was used for other purposes.

6) On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that, as the source of the instant 2 insurance premium, the Plaintiff, as seen earlier, had been asserting that ○○○○○’s name account was either a DNA securities account under the name of the Plaintiff, Jung○○, Jung○○, Ma○○, and ○○○○○○○○○○○○, or a subsequent D/C account under the name of the Plaintiff, 226***************, except any source that cannot be viewed as the Plaintiff’s funds, the Plaintiff did not submit specific evidence to prove that ○○○, an insurance solicitor, was either withdrawn or kept cash at the time when 2 insurance premium was paid, and that ○○, who is an insurance solicitor, paid some insurance premium as part of its own fees, but it is insufficient to recognize that ○○’

3) As to the key 3 insurance premium

A) In full view of the purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 6, 21, 22-1 through 11 of the evidence Nos. 6, 22-1, there is no evidence to support that ○○’s account was deposited in cash from January 3, 2005 to September 30, 201 and the time when the Plaintiff’s insurance premium was paid in cash, the amount corresponds to a considerable amount, and there is no other evidence to support that the said deposited money was used for any other purpose.

On the other hand, the withdrawal details asserted by the Plaintiff as the source of the 3 insurance premiums during the above period are inconsistent with the time and amount.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the 3 insurance premium paid during the above period was paid in cash from the account of ○○○○○, and used for the payment of the insurance premium. Therefore, this part of the disposition by the Defendant, which determined that the Plaintiff received the 3 insurance premium from ○○○○, is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’

B) However, the defendant's disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 20,60,60 on January 31, 2012 was taken on the ground that the sum of KRW 29,400,00,00 and KRW 4,700,631, which is part of the 1 insurance premium recognized by the plaintiff as gift and KRW 34,10,631, which is part of the 3 insurance premium that the plaintiff denies as gift is part of the 4,700,631 out of the 3 insurance premium, and the above KRW 4,70,631,00,631, which is the above 206*** 1,045,323,210,****65,000,000, *******105,000,000, ****105,400,61, *614,205, *614,205,**6,14,25, etc.

Therefore, as alleged by the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that KRW 4,70,631, which is part of the 3 insurance premiums at issue, was paid as KRW 4,700,631, out of KRW 3 insurance premiums as of January 27, 2012, BB bank 26*******, KRW 4,700,631, among the 3 insurance premiums as of January 31, 2012, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 20,603,60, which is part of the 4,700,631, among the 3 insurance premiums as of January 31, 2012, should be revoked. In addition, where only the above part is revoked, there is no dispute between the parties, and the Defendant’s imposition of KRW 13,322,610 against the Plaintiff on March 6, 2015 as of KRW 20,603,600.

3) As to the key 4 premiums

In light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the overall purport of Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 7, 11, and 23, Eul evidence No. 8-1, and Eul evidence No. 8-3, and the whole purport of each part of the statements and arguments No. 3, this "○○" opened theCC Tele-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul around 1996 and operated it for up to 2016. It was acknowledged that the plaintiff's cash revenue was deposited into the account BB Bank 26************ by depositing the above account in cash. The plaintiff transferred the 4 insurance premium from the above account to ○○, the plaintiff paid the plaintiff's insurance premium to ○○, the plaintiff did not submit specific evidence to recognize that the money deposited in the above account is the plaintiff's funds other than the insurance money received from the insurance company or other assets deposited by the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is clear that the Plaintiff’s revenue deposited in cash is the money of this ○○ even if the Plaintiff managed it in his own name, and the 4 insurance premium recognized as the value of donated property appears to be part of the total amount of the franchise revenue deposited in cash. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition that determined that the Plaintiff received the 4 insurance premium from this ○○, is justifiable, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.