Cho Jae-chul2012 Before 3044 (2012.06)

It shall not be deemed that the deceased has made a donation in advance, not a remittance as salt farm management expenses.

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not submit data on the burden of expenses incurred in the joint operation of salt farm business and the distribution of profits, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff was donated in advance, not the remittance as the salt farm management expenses before the commencement of inheritance, since the Plaintiff operated the salt farm independently

2012Revocation of disposition of revocation of imposition of gift tax

XX Kim

Head of Busan District Tax Office

November 7, 2012

December 5, 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 against the Plaintiff on June 5, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. As a result of the investigation conducted from January 9, 2012 to February 27, 2012 with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant confirmed on December 15, 2005 that KRW 000 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant money”) withdrawn from the bank account, the mother of the Plaintiff, was deposited into the Plaintiff’s bank account, and determined that the Plaintiff received the instant money from the Deceased, and imposed a gift tax of KRW 00 on the Plaintiff on June 5, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

B. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 28, 2012, but was dismissed on September 6, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, the deceased, and the KimB jointly operated the 'xx salt farm' at the 51,565 square meters of Yongsan-gu, Seosan-si, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the 'the instant salt farm'). The instant money is not a donation made by the deceased to the plaintiff because the deceased transferred it to the plaintiff as the salt farm management expenses of the XX salt farm. The Defendant's disposition on a different premise should be revoked in an unlawful manner.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "donations in this Act shall mean free transfer (including transfer at a remarkably low price) of tangible or intangible property (including transfer at a remarkably low price) in which economic value can be calculated to another person, notwithstanding the name of the act or transaction, form, purpose, etc., or an increase in the value of another person's property by means of direct or indirect means." In a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, the deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer inasmuch as the deposit in the name of the person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of the taxpayer, etc., unless special circumstances exist, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of the taxpayer, etc., are presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

As to this case, the facts that the amount of this case, which was withdrawn from the Health Board and the bank account in the name of the deceased on December 15, 2005, was deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account are as seen earlier, and thus, the amount of this case is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on the amount of this case is justifiable, barring special circumstances.

The plaintiff asserts that the amount of this case was paid as operating expenses by the deceased, who is a joint operator of the " XX salt farm". Thus, according to the plaintiff's father, KimCC, its father, from December 30, 1980 to the trade name of XX salt farm, and died around November 1, 2004. The heir of KimCC applied for correction of the business registration for changing the 1/3 share of the plaintiff, the deceased, and the 20-year 20-year 20-year 20-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 200-year 207.

3. Conclusion

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