Whether the amount deposited in a deposit account, etc. can be seen as a donation

The burden of proving the special circumstance that the deposit in the name of the decedent was withdrawn and used in repayment of the loan obligation under the name of the plaintiff or was paid as the purchase price of real estate was presumed to have been donated, and that the tax authority's disposition is legitimate on the ground that there is no objective evidence.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

Article 13 (Taxable Amount of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax)

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On February 6, 2007, the Defendant imposed KRW 520,179,00 of the inheritance tax on the Plaintiff Lee○-tae, Kim○-hee, Kim○-hee, Kim○-hee, and Kim○-○ on the same day, and the imposition of KRW 113,40,00 of the gift tax on the Plaintiff Kim○-Un on the same day, and the imposition of KRW 18,126,350 of the gift tax on the Plaintiff Kim○-hwan on the same day, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Eul evidence 3 through 7-1, 2, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 14, 15-1, 2, Eul evidence 16-1 through 3, Eul evidence 17, 18, and the whole purport of pleadings:

A. On July 13, 2004, the deceased died on July 13, 2004, 1,425,200, 140,000 won (land 1,409,100,000 won, 14,60,000,000 won, cash 1,012,960,960,960 won (4,479,160,160, 8,481,80, 100, 100,000 won, 1,40,000 won, 14,60,00 won, 1,000 won, 1,012,960 won, funeral expenses, 8,481,80 won, 1,000, 100,000 won, 203,360,000 won, 204,000 won.).

B. In the process of inheritance tax investigation on the inheritor, the Defendant confirmed the fact that the decedent donated KRW 2,181,89,063 out of the transfer proceeds received from the transferee, as stated in the “the details of advance donation through financial tracking,” 2,50,000 won in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○○○, 00,00-1 commercial building (hereinafter “instant building”) which was the property of the decedent disposed of by the sales contract on July 7, 2000, two years before the commencement of inheritance, 300,000 won, 300 won, 50 won, 300 won, 700 won, 3080 won, 80 won, 300 won, 80 won, 300 won, 300 won, 80 won, 300 won, 80 won, 300 won, 80 won, 300 won, 80 won, 1967, 7081.

C. On February 6, 2007, the Defendant calculated the inheritance tax amount by adding 725,179,136 won to the inheritance tax amount pursuant to Article 13 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) for the inheritor 200.3 billion won, 200 won for the gift tax of 2003, 200 won for the gift tax of 2003, 300 won for the gift tax of 2000, 200 won for the gift tax of 2000, 300 won for the gift tax of 200, 300 won for the gift tax of 10,780, 400 won for the gift tax of 200, 1,574, 400 won for the gift tax of 200, 200 won for the gift tax of 200, 300 won for the gift tax of 200, 201 won for the gift tax of 20001.

E. On June 21, 2007, Plaintiff Kim Jong-Un filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal on the imposition of gift tax on June 21, 2007, and revoked 11,200,000 won of gift tax in November 22, 2007, and received a decision to dismiss the remainder of the claims. The Plaintiff Kim Jong-○ also filed a request for a trial with the National Tax Tribunal on the imposition of gift tax on June 21, 2007, and received a decision to dismiss the remainder of claims.

F. Meanwhile, on December 28, 2007, the Defendant calculated 131,248,000 won among the 1,246,849,063 won of the property which was investigated by the inheritors to have been given a prior donation from the inheritee (i.e., KRW 82,948,000, KRW 17,0000, KRW 21,300, KRW 1000, KRW 200, KRW 1000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 206, KRW 70, KRW 75,000, KRW 60, KRW 706, KRW 706, KRW 700, KRW 700, KRW 75,000, KRW 7,000, KRW 67,005, KRW 767,0000.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

1) On October 19, 200, the Defendant: (a) on October 19, 200, the decedent repaid 300,000,000 won to ○○ Life Insurance under the name of Kim Jong-Un (hereinafter “instant amount”); and (b) on December 26, 1998, the decedent appears to have given the said amount advance donation to the Plaintiff Kim Jong-Un; (c) however, it is difficult for the decedent to obtain a loan from the Defendant due to the restriction on lending from the financial right to the elderly; (d) at the time, the Plaintiff Kim Jong-Un was able to obtain a business registration certificate of ○○ English doctor; and (e) obtained the instant building from ○○ Life Insurance on December 12, 1998 under the name of the decedent, while the decedent was at the time responsible for a considerable amount of debt; (e) on December 26, 1998, the decedent was given a loan of KRW 100,000,000 from the above loan to ○ under its name.

Therefore, the imposition of inheritance tax on the heir who added the issues ① amount to the taxable amount of inheritance tax of this case and the imposition of gift tax on the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un is unlawful.

2) The defendant used 160,000,000 won that was withdrawn by the decedent's national bank account on November 29, 2000 by the decedent as the purchase price for the house of the plaintiff Kim○-dong, Seoul, ○○○ apartment, 2,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the purchase price for the house of the plaintiff Kim○-dong"), and thus, the decedent was deemed to have given the above advance donation to the plaintiff Kim○-dong. However, the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong, 2, 808, who had been living in the previous year, was temporarily residing in the decedent's domicile due to the sale of the house of the plaintiff Kim○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, 2,000,00 won that was returned to the decedent on August 29, 200, the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong temporarily 120,000 won that was returned to the decedent on November 29, 200, the remaining amount was borrowed from the decedent, but repaid to the plaintiff on May 20, 10, 20.

Therefore, among the dispositions of this case, the imposition of inheritance tax on the heir who added the amount of the issue B to the taxable amount of inheritance tax and the imposition of gift tax on the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un is illegal.

3) On October 19, 200, the Defendant: (a) paid by the decedent a loan of KRW 144,736,980 on behalf of the decedent for ○○ Life Insurance in the name of Kim○-dong (hereinafter “instant amount”); (b) on December 29, 1995, the decedent was deemed to have given a prior donation to the Plaintiff Kim○-dong; (c) however, on the security of the instant building owned by the decedent, on December 29, 1995, the Defendant could not be deemed to have delayed payment of KRW 140,00,00 and KRW 1,323,00,000 and KRW 1,323,00,000 from bank loans, including loans of KRW 144,736,980, and KRW 140,000,000, which were loaned by the decedent to the Plaintiff ○○-dong building (hereinafter “○○-dong building”) but could not be deemed to have been repaid by the Plaintiff 1’s life deposit.

Therefore, the imposition of inheritance tax on the heir who added the issue third amount to the taxable amount of inheritance tax of this case and the imposition of gift tax on the plaintiff Kim Jong-hwan is unlawful.

4) On February 18, 2002, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the inheritee donated KRW 90,000,000, which was transferred from the inheritee’s account to the Plaintiff’s present account, to the Plaintiff’s present account (hereinafter “instant No.D.”); (b) however, the Defendant used the money to pay the inheritee’s debt upon receiving the said money from the inheritee.

Therefore, the taxation of inheritance tax is unlawful for the heir who added the No.4 of the issue of the taxation of this case to the taxable amount of inheritance taxes.

5) The amount of KRW 650,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as "amount of No. 14) on the loan obligation for the ○○○ Life Insurance in the name of Plaintiff Kim○-dong (hereinafter referred to as "the amount") is recorded as his/her own debt in the joint venture (the evidence No. 14) prepared by the decedent, and in the event of age, it was restricted from the loan from the financial right in the event of age, and it was difficult to receive the loan from the name of Plaintiff Kim○-○ as a joint guarantor because it was borrowed in the name of Plaintiff Kim○-○, and Plaintiff Kim○-do without any property at the time of the loan was carried out as a joint guarantor

Therefore, the amount to be deducted from the taxable amount of inheritance tax in calculating the amount of inheritance tax imposition among the dispositions of this case as debts of the inheritee.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

Article 13 (Taxable Amount of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax)

Article 14 (Public Imposts, etc. Deducted from Value of Inherited Property)

Article 10 (Method, etc. of Verifying Obligations)

C. Determination

1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, insofar as the deposit in the name of a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account under the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name, etc. were made for other purpose than donation, the need to prove such fact is the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001)

According to the above facts, since the deposit in the name of the decedent was withdrawn, and used in repayment of the loan obligations under the name of the plaintiff Kim-○, Kim○-hwan, and Lee Jong-○, or paid with the purchase price of real estate under the name of the plaintiff Kim Jong-hwan, each of the above amounts is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiff Kim Jong-hwan and Kim○-○, and if there are special circumstances, such as that the transfer of the above amounts was made for other purpose than the donation, it is necessary to prove

2) As to the issue ① amount

According to the evidence No. 20 No. 1, 20, and 21 evidence No. 1 (written evidence of deposits without passbook) of 1, 200, and 100,000 won for each transfer to ○○○○○ on December 26, 1998, and 100,000 won for ○○○○ Life Insurance on December 29, 1998, the above transfers to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the decedent was liable by ○○○○○○ and ○○○○○○○○ Life Insurance, and instead, it is difficult to deem that the borrower was liable by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 9,000 for each of its principal and interest on 90,000 won transferred to ○○○○○○○○, and that ○○○○ was liable to 9,196.

Furthermore, even though the size of sales is not large, in light of the fact that the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un was directly running the business, and that the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un was granted a loan from the plaintiff Kim Jong-dong business fund, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, such as the meta (Evidence A 14) and the statement of opinion (Evidence A22), which was an employee of ○○ Life Insurance, is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's obligation for the ○○ Life Insurance in the name of the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un was actually the predecessor, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3) For key (B)

According to Gap evidence Nos. 29-1 through 3 (each receipt) and Gap evidence Nos. 30 (Transaction of Transaction) each, only the fact that the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un received deposits from the deceased decedent on May 15, 1997 with the former rent deposit of 00,000,000 won on May 26, 1997, with the former rent deposit of 808,000,000 won on May 26, 1997, 65,00,000,000 won on June 4, 1997, and 25,000,000 won on May 11, 200, and 200 won on May 25, 200, there is no evidence that the plaintiff Kim Jong-Un received the above payment from the deceased decedent on August 20, 200 and 10,000 won on May 25, 2015.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

4) As to the third amount of issue

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the evidence No. 31 (the details of financing), is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff Kim Jong-tae paid all the loans to the decedent as the lease deposit incurred from the building at ○○ Dong-dong, after the completion of the building at ○○○○○ Building. Moreover, although the loan for the life insurance was granted to the plaintiff Kim Il-tae, the defendant was repaid with the money of the decedent, i.e., the proceeds of the sale of the building of this case, and the above loan was paid with the money of the decedent, i.e., the money of the building of this case, and the above loan was directly repaid to the defendant in the life insurance in his name. However, in light of the fact that there are no special circumstances to make the decedent repay the money to the decedent, the issue amount is reasonable to deem that the defendant donated the above amount equivalent to the money to the plaintiff Kim Il-

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

5) As to the No.D. amount

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, such as Gap evidence 33 and Gap evidence 34 (certificate of deposit transaction) is insufficient to recognize the plaintiffs' assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

6) For No. 54

In the absence of objective evidence, such as supporting documents related to the repayment of the obligation that can be seen as the obligation of the inheritee, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be viewed as the obligation of the inheritee.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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