As long as the deposit in the name of a donor is withdrawn and the deposit is revealed to be made in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.

As long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authorities is withdrawn and deposited in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and under special circumstances, such as the withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit in the name of the taxpayer are made for other purpose than donation, it is necessary to prove it to the taxpayer.

Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2012Guhap3201 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

May 3, 2013

May 31, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of gift tax OOOO on November 1, 201 by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From the end of 2005 to the end of 2007, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the increase in the financial assets of the Plaintiff, and from June 13, 201 to August 21, 201, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into the source of funds (from January 1, 2005 to April 30, 201) against the Plaintiff.

B. From August 8, 2007 to May 16, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that “OOOOO(s) deposited from the Plaintiff’s mother BB free of charge was received respectively from the Defendant at a reasonable interest rate under Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); (b) the difference between the interest and the interest under Article 41-4(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; (c) from February 7, 2006 to March 2, 2009; and (c) notified the Defendant of the taxation data.”

C. Accordingly, on November 1, 201, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the gift tax OOO on the details of the attached disposition (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal on January 18, 2012, and was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on July 3, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Evidence 1 and 2 (including household numbers), and Evidence 1 (including household numbers), and the overall purport of the pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On behalf of BB with poor mobility, OOO, and the amount of interest was used for BB, including hospital costs, nursing costs, house repair costs, and house repair costs.

(2) The CCC borrowed OOO sources, and on March 15, 2012, the CCC paid 3.5% annual interest.

(3) Along with the lease of US$ (not later than the exchange rate, approximately KRW 00,000) to DD, it was paid out of KRW 00,00,00 including interest OOO.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) As to the money received from BB

(A) (1) The Plaintiff received the salaries of the EE (hereinafter referred to as “EE”) from the officers of the EE (hereinafter referred to as “EE”), and from the year 2000, OO or OOO.

② BB is a major shareholder of EE. BB received payment from EE as OO in 2004, OOO in 2005, OOO in 2006, OOOO in 2007, 2008, OOOO in 2009, OOOO in 2009, OOOO in 2010, and OOOO in 201.

On the other hand, the head of Sung-dong Tax Office conducted a tax investigation on EE, and disposed of OOO as a bonus for BB from 2005 to 2009, and cancelled OOOO on March 23, 201.

(B) The Plaintiff received or withdrawn the following money from BB.

Deposit Date

Account

Amount of entrance fees (won)

Date of Termination

The amount of withdrawal shall be the amount of the withdrawal.

Jinay

1

August 8, 2007

O Bank

000-00000-75-011

OOO

February 4, 2008

OOO

2

208.24

O Bank

000-00000-75-051

OOO

March 13, 2008

OOO

3

208.

3. 13.

O Bank

00-00000-75-090

OOO

April 17, 2008

OOO

Deposit of KRW OO on April 17, 2008 in EE under the name of BB's ad hoc deposit.

4

O Bank

000-00000-75-082

OOO

April 17, 2008

OOO

5

April 17, 2008

O Bank

000-00000-75-101

OOO

May 27, 2008

OOO

OOO

6

May 27, 2008

O Bank

00-00000-75-125

OOO

August 26, 2008

OOO

7

August 26, 2008

O Bank

000-00000-75-157

OOO

November 25, 2008

OOO

8

November 25, 2008

O Bank

000-00000-75-171

OOO

March 3, 2009

OOO

FF: F

Transfer of OOOwons

9

March 3, 2009

O Bank

000-0000-96-002

OOO

August 25, 2009

OOO

Use as the Plaintiff’s real estate acquisition fund

September 7, 2009

OOO

10

September 7, 2009

O Bank

000-00000-12-008

OOO

December 8, 2009

OOO

11

March 11, 2010

O Bank

000-0000-96-002

OOO

November 23, 2010

OOO

12

O Bank

000-00000-13-013

February 7, 2011

OOO

BB Return to B

13

O Bank

000-00000-13-000

OOO

April 19, 2011

OOO

00

O Bank

000-0000-96-002

April 19, 2011

OOO

15

O Bank

00-028635-03-012

April 19, 2011

OOO

(C) The Plaintiff deposited OO on April 1, 2008, OOO on April 17, 2008, OOOO on April 22, 2008, OOOOOO on April 22, 2008, and OOOOO on May 16, 2008.

(D) The Plaintiff deposited OO on October 00, 208, 2000, OOO on February 16, 2009, and OOOO on March 3, 2009, 1, total 1, and OOOO.

FF was awarded 'OO-Gu OF OF 113-203 GGGGB 202' in addition to its own money. On November 4, 2011, the Defendant imposed a gift tax on FF on the ground that "the Plaintiff was given a donation of the said money from the Plaintiff". The FF claimed that "the Plaintiff, after being awarded a successful bid for the said real estate, sold the said real estate, divided the principal and the profits, and borrowed from the Plaintiff," and that on July 3, 2012, the Tax Tribunal decided that "the Plaintiff loaned the said money to FF, thus the disposition of imposition is revoked."

(E) On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased HH A 402 units located in the OOdong located in the OO-dong located in the OO-dong, at the OO-dong, from the purchase price, and withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s account at the O-bank (00-000-96-02) to the purchase price and paid the purchase price.

(f) The Plaintiff is an owner of 'O-gu OO-dong 115-10 land and above-ground housing', and is residing together with BB and FF in the above housing. The Plaintiff has paid comprehensive real estate holding tax on the above land and above-ground housing.

(G) The interest rate publicly notified pursuant to the delegation under Article 31-7(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24358, Feb. 15, 2013) is as follows:

Interest Rate

Time of Application

National Tax Service Notice No. 2001-31 of December 31, 2001

Notice No. 2002-41 of December 31, 2002

Notice No. 2009-27 of July 31, 2009

9%

From January 1, 2002, the interest accrued to the application thereof.

Notice of Ministry of Strategy and Finance No. 2010-18 of November 5, 2010

8.5% by mass

From November 5, 2010, interest accrued to the application thereof after November 5, 2010

(h) The Defendant, in sequence, deducted the amount returned from BB, and calculated the gratuitous loan benefit by multiplying the remaining amount by the above interest rate.

(2) As to the money received from the CCC

(A) The Plaintiff received the following money from the CCC:

Deposit Date

Deposit Accounts

Amount (won)

1

February 7, 2006

O Bank 000-0000-02-021

OOO

2

August 13, 2007

〃 4

OOO

3

April 1, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-01-007

OOO

4

May 7, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

5

May 29, 2002

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

6

June 26, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

7

July 30, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

8

August 26, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

9

October 2, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

10

November 3, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

11

December 1, 2008

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

12

December 8, 2008

O Bank 000-0000-75-132

OOO

13

January 2, 2009

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

00

February 2, 2009

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

15

March 2, 2009

Obank 00-00000-00-006

OOO

O Bank 000-0000-00-007

OOO

Total

OOO

(B) The CCC has served as the head of the overseas business headquarters of the EE and the head of the Hong Kong EE branch. CCC received from EE the salaries of OO in 2005, OOOO in 2006, OOOO in 2007, OOOOO in 2008, OOOOOO in 2009, and OOOO in 2010.

(C) On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff borrowed the sum of the principal and interest calculated at the interest rate of 3.5% per annum fromCC, and the amount of OOOOO won from August 13, 2007, and the amount of OOO won from April 1, 2008 to March 2, 2009. The Plaintiff drafted a written agreement that “The obligation and settlement shall be made by paying the sum of the principal and interest calculated at the rate of 3.5% per annum to CCC, and the obligation and settlement shall be made.”

(3) As to the money received from DD

(A) On September 28, 2007, the Plaintiff received OOO staff from DD.

(b)DD is a shareholder of EE.

[Grounds for recognition] The entire purport of Gap's 5, 11, 16 through 28, 34, 35, 46, 47, 48 (including household numbers), and 3,12, 13,00 (including household numbers), and the entire purport of the pleadings

D. Determination

(1) In general, in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of a tax imposition disposition, tax requirements are the burden of proof to the imposing authority, and if it is found that the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of the lawsuit are proved, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue are not eligible for application of the empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu811, Dec. 22, 1987).

In addition, inasmuch as it is found that, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, a person’s nominal deposit recognized as a donor has been withdrawn by the tax office and deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and there are special circumstances, such as withdrawal of the deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name, etc. are made for other purpose than donation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

(2) As to the OO directors received from BB

(A) ① It is not clear that the need to deposit and manageOOB into the Plaintiff’s account (if necessary, it may withdraw money from the Plaintiff’s account) ② OOB is used in combination with the Plaintiff’s money, and the money withdrawn from the account deposited by the OOB is used as the purchase price for the house. ③ According to the records of card use submitted by the Plaintiff (No. 3 evidence, No. 11 and No. 15 evidence No. 15-32), it is difficult to specify the Plaintiff’s personal consumption as the cost to support BB, and (4) it is difficult to specify the nursing expense details submitted by BB (No. 8 evidence No. 1,23, and No. 9), and (5) it is difficult to consider that the Plaintiff’s expenses were paid after return of the OB, and the timing when the OB was not clear, and that it is difficult to consider that the Plaintiff’s income was paid to 10 OB, and that it is difficult to consider that it was paid to 10O-5.

(B) The plaintiff asserts that even if the amount of interest is a donation, the amount of interest should be deducted from the amount of gift tax, as the sum of OOOO is paid to the FF, OO in accordance with BB's instructions.

However, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff and FF asserted that “OO-gu OO-dong 113-203 GG 202 was awarded a successful bid, and then they were resold, and then divided and lent the principal and profits,” it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had the holding interest in the said money, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(3) As to the money received from the CCC

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and witness CCC testimony, and ① CCC has no data on income other than the annual salary of OOO or OOOOO won, ② A total period of payment, interest rate, or loan certificate has not been designated or prepared. ③ CCC has deposited more than two times annual salary in the plaintiff's account in 2006 and 2007, and each month has been divided into two accounts from April 1, 2008 to March 2, 2009, and there was a lot of amount in light of annual salary, and there was no other form of payment, and there was no other reason that the balance between the above OO or OO card was paid by CCC for a long time, and there was no other reason that CCC has been returned to 205 other than the above OO or 25 years, and there was no other economic reason that CCC had been returned.

(4) As to the money received from DD

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, there are 1 statements in Gap evidence 6-1, witness DD testimony, and there is no evidence to support that there was a loan for business purpose like DD testimony, and DD is a certain relationship with the plaintiff as a shareholder of EE, and it is not revealed how the plaintiff lent funds to the plaintiff, and it is unclear how the calculation details of interest, etc. accrued from the loan are unclear, it cannot be viewed that it was repaid from DD.

(5) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.