early 2012 Before 0308 (29 March 2012)

It is reasonable to see that a donation was made ex post facto by deeming that a notarial deed was prepared.

It is reasonable to view that a notarial deed of a monetary loan for consumption was made on the date of receipt of a prior notice of tax investigation, and that the payment of interest was later remitted to a financial account to write out the same appearance as that paid under a monetary loan for consumption, in light of the fact that the details of payment are different from that

2012Guhap2698 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

XX Kim

The Director of the National Tax Service

November 21, 2012

December 12, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on October 13, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From May 30, 201 to July 31, 2011, the Defendant confirmed the fact that KimA, his father, transferred real estate in 2007 to the Plaintiff and investigated the place of use of part of KRW 000 that he acquired, that KimA paid KRW 00 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Plaintiff around September 25, 2008.

B. On October 13, 201, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff donated the instant money from KimA, and thus imposed a gift tax of KRW 718,712,00 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

C. On December 22, 2011, the Defendant dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on March 29, 2012.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not receive a donation from KimA to borrow the instant money, the Defendant’s disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff received the instant money from KimA shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) While running a construction/mid-term contract and a rental business under the name of XX, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with 000 won to acquire cler from O Co., Ltd., and paid part of the purchase price of the said cler by receiving the instant money from KimA on September 25, 2008.

(2) Before conducting an investigation into the sources of capital gains to KimA, the Defendant sent a prior notice of tax investigation to KimA, and KimA received it on May 20, 201.

(3) On May 20, 201, the Plaintiff and KimA drafted in a law firm a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the following contents.

(Contents omitted)

(4) From January 30, 2009 to November 29, 2011, the Plaintiff deposited a total of 000 won into an account in the name of KimA over 18 times, and the details thereof are as follows.

(The following details are omitted):

(5) On February 10, 2012, on September 25, 2008, the Plaintiff’s model KimB, KimCC, KimD, KimE, and KimF prepared a written confirmation that the KimA consented to lending KRW 00 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6 (including branch numbers in the case of provisional evidence), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts: ① the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed on the instant money under the monetary loan contract with the Defendant for consumption after the lapse of two years and eight months from September 25, 2008; ② the notarial deed on the said monetary loan contract for consumption was made on the date when KimA received a notice of tax investigation from the Defendant; ③ the Plaintiff paid KRW 00 to KimA 18 times in total from January 30, 2009 to November 29, 201. However, the Plaintiff appears to have received 200 won in the money under the notarial deed for consumption loan contract with the Defendant’s notarial deed from September 201 to September 20, 201 to 200 won (i.e., the notarial deed for consumption loan with the Defendant’s notarial deed with the Defendant’s notarial deed for payment of KRW 100 to 200,000 from September 20, 201).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.