In a case where a donee has donated the real estate under his/her possession after borrowing the money under the name of the father and the joint name with the real estate to secure his/her own business fund, whether the donation shall be deemed as a onerous donation.

If a donee provides a collateral for his/her own business fund and borrowed money under the name of his/her father and vice-owned real estate as a collateral, is a debt of the donee and thus, if the donee receives a transfer registration after receiving a donation of the above real estate and then the donee has repaid the principal and interest thereof, it is legitimate to impose a gift tax without deducting the amount of debt from the donation value.

Article 29-4 of the Inheritance Tax Act

R. M.O. M.R.

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The imposition of 1,712,173 won and 373,564 won and defense tax against the plaintiff on November 16, 1983 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

In the imposition of gift tax on August 31, 1982, on the ground that the Plaintiff received the gift tax from his father Doksan-dong 1532-2, 23, 1533, and 84 on each ground, from his father Doksan-dong 1532-2, 1533, and 154 on each ground, the head 8, 12, 12, 13, 12, 14, 4, 4, 7, 16, 1, 3, 16, 1, 3, 16, 1, 3, 16, 1, 3, 1, 3, 16, 1, 3, 16, 1, 1, 3, 3, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 5, 1, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1983.

Therefore, the Plaintiff alleged that he purchased 18 million won at the above 5th of August 24, 1982, instead of this real estate donated to the non-party 1, the non-party 5, but consistent therewith, the statement of No. 5, the witness testimony and part of the Plaintiff’s personal examination result cannot be trusted and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise in light of other parts of the above 1st of the new 3th of August, 198, other parts of the Plaintiff’s personal examination result, and the whole purport of oral argument. According to Article 34 of the Inheritance Tax Act, the value of the property transferred to the spouse or lineal ascendants and descendants is deemed to have been donated to the transferee at the time of transfer of the pertinent property, regardless of the fact that the transferor purchased the said property and paid it to the non-party 2, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, it is reasonable to acknowledge that the above 2th of the Plaintiff’s new 3th of the new 1st of the new 3th of the new 3th of the new 3th of the title.

Therefore, since the defendant's disposition of imposing gift tax of this case against the plaintiff is appropriate, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)