Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap5900 ( December 05, 2014)

An open business operator who received money from the Plaintiff or from the sale of the property is a partner's loan in the past.

(1) Since the opening money received by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff and from the sale of the Plaintiff is determined as loans borrowed from the Plaintiff and from the sale of the Plaintiff for the purpose of paying the liquidation money to the Plaintiff, the disposition of this case, which is premised on donation, is unlawful.

2015Nu30205 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax, etc.

The AA

The director of the tax office.

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2014Guhap5900 decided December 5, 2014

June 16, 2015

July 7, 2015

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

Gift tax of KRW 239,530,500, 2010, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on March 5, 2013, and reverted to the Plaintiff in 2010.

Each disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 80,650,000 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation of this case shall be made or added as follows 2.3.

Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, civil lawsuits, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

It is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Forwarding Act as it is.

2. Details of the alteration;

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is c. c. 2010. 2010.

12. 2.0 billion won in each of e-e's account (2005-00-000) in part (3. 7.8 pages).

'The account of the e cc in 2010.1 December 1, 2010 each of the accounts of the e cc in ccc in e.

(205-000-0000) shall be written in 2005.

(b) bb and ccc in the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. b. sub-paragraph (b) of '3. Determination Items'.

from January 3, 2011, 201, on the day following the day on which the money was paid to Gohap, ‘D' with ‘4,5,6' portion, bb and C, c, from January 3, 201, the day following the last payment of the money to the Plaintiff.

3. Reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance: c. Information to be added at the end of paragraph (1).

5) Inasmuch as bb, etc. has been found to have delivered KRW 0 billion to the Plaintiff, the nature of the money is as follows.

Unproofd regarding the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the said money is a donation to the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 197.

2. In a case where the Plaintiff asserted that the money was paid as the price for the transfer of 00 won with dd's money, and the Plaintiff and the founder of 00 d's joint name had been changed from d's d' joint name, and d'd' has been transferred twice a month to b's d'b, etc., the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the Plaintiff was not related to the transfer of b's d's d's d's d's d' and d' d' d' d' d's d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' d' and d' d' d' d

On the other hand, to determine whether bbb and c has donated 0 billion won to the Plaintiff:

원고가 00치과의 공동개설자의 지위에서 �퇴한 것을 어떻게 평가할 것인지, ddd이 fff의 계좌에 송금한 돈을 어떻게 평가할 것인지를 살펴볼 필요가 있다. 즉, 원고가 00치과의 공동개설자의 지위에서 탈퇴하였다고 하더라도 원고의 주장과 달리 원고가 00치과를 ddd에게 유상으로 양도 또는 임대하였다고 볼 수 없다면1) bbb등이 원고에게 교부한 00억 원은 그와 반대되는 거래가 없는 편면적인 것이어서 이를증여라고 볼 수 있을 것이나, 원고의 주장에 일부 거짓이 있다고 하더라도 원고가 00치과를 ddd에게 유상으로 양도 또는 임대하였다면2) bbb 등이 원고에게 교부한 00억 원은 그와 반대되는 거래에 관한 대가로서 교부된 것일 개연성이 있어 이를 증여라고 단정하기 어려울 것이다.

1) For instance, in cases where (i) the Plaintiff, not the actual owner of at least 00 dental clinics, was transferred or leased 00 dental clinics and received the transfer proceeds, rent, or investment profits from Dodd as the actual owner; (ii) the Plaintiff was in possession of 00 dental clinics, but the Plaintiff was transferred or lent to ddd without compensation, or (iii) the Plaintiff was in possession of d d d d s with 00 and without any equity interest in 00 items (including the Plaintiff and d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

2) For example, ① (a) after having taken over or leased 00 Won from the Plaintiff, directly borrowed 0 billion won from bbb, etc. and paid the transfer price or deposit to the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff borrowed 0 billion won from bb, etc. in installments; or (c) the Plaintiff borrowed 0 billion won from bb, etc., and dD would have b, etc. pay b, etc. in lieu of the Plaintiff’s loan.

However, bb, etc. when the Plaintiff establishes a joint 00 section with Dd; or

dd. b. or d. 00 d. 00 d. by reason that D. has fully borne its operating capital.

The circumstances in which the actual manager or the Plaintiff may transfer or lease 00 c.s. free of charge to D and/or D.

There is no evidence to support that there is no other transactional relationship that the Plaintiff has another 0,000,000 won from January 3, 2011, which is the following month after being given KRW 0 billion from BB, etc., to BB, etc., and DD from January 3, 201 to BB, or BB, etc. twice a month.

If so, KRW 0 billion delivered by BB, etc. to the Plaintiff free of charge without any transactional relationship

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded as a donation. Therefore, it is difficult to regard it as a donation.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance with this conclusion is just.

Since the judgment is justifiable, the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.