2015west 5101 (2016.09.19)

Gift tax imposition is legitimate for a transaction of low-cost acquisition of real estate from a parent who is a related party.

Since the plaintiff submitted any data on the payment of the price for the transaction in which real estate was acquired at a low price from the mother of a related party, the imposition of gift tax is legitimate.

Donation of profits from transfer by low-price and high-priced under Article 35 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Guhap81192 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

O Head of tax office

National Rotations

August 18, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

A disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 15,554,990 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on October 1, 2015 by the Defendant

(b) revoke the subsection (3).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 31, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on October 31, 2013, on the ground of the trading on October 15, 2013 (transaction value of 300,000,000) with respect to OO-ro O-ro O-gu Seoul O-B apartment No. 302 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. The Defendant: (a) conducted an investigation of capital gains tax on AB around September 2015; and (b) acquired the instant apartment from AB from AB to KRW 32,00,000 (the amount that the Plaintiff was used as AB among KRW 100,00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “CC Bank”); (c) the value of the donated apartment from AB was KRW 128,30,000 (hereinafter referred to as “29,000-32,000-32,000,000; hereinafter referred to as “the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (d) the value of the donated apartment from AB to KRW 32,00,00 (the amount that the Plaintiff was used as AB among KRW 100,00,00,000) under the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13515, Dec. 15, 2015); and (d) the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act No. 201636

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 9, 10 evidence, Eul's 1 evidence, pleading

The purport of the whole

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from Ansan to KRW 300,000 (=180,000,000 + KRW 100,000,000 + cash 20,000 + the amount of KRW 100,000. The Plaintiff provided the Plaintiff with monetary support necessary for hospital expenses, living costs, etc., and agreed that the amount of the deposit would have increased as much as the amount of the deposit would have been paid. The amount of the deposit increased was KRW 180,00,000, around 2012 when the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment from Ansan. In addition, the Plaintiff paid KRW 180,00,000 to the Plaintiff for KRW 180,00,000,000, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, based on the premise that the Plaintiff had paid the cash to KRW 20,000,000,000,00 to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

In full view of the following facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff acquired the apartment house of this case from AB at a low price of KRW 32,00,000,00 in consideration of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged or known as a whole by comprehensively taking account of the respective statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 11, 15-1, 15-2, 2, and 2:

(1) The Plaintiff did not submit the calculation details and relevant financial data despite asserting that the amount continuously disbursed for AD or AB reaches KRW 180,000,000,000, and that the deposit was paid for the lease. The Plaintiff submitted the real estate lease contract between the Plaintiff and AB, which was indicated as KRW 180,000,000, as evidence, to this court. However, even though the said contract was not submitted at the time of the investigation of the transfer income tax on AB, the Plaintiff prepared the said contract through a licensed real estate agent, even though the Plaintiff and AB were between the Plaintiff and AB, it is hard to view that the real estate lease contract was established through a licensed real estate agent, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff stated that AB paid KRW 180,00,00 to AB on the date of the contract, but there was no evidence verifying the payment. In light of this, in fact, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned real estate lease contract was in place of the purchase price.

② Of the Plaintiff’s 100,000,000CC loans 10,000, 95,000,000 won was transferred to the Plaintiff’s EB account on October 31, 2013, and the remaining 5,00,000 won was deemed to have been deposited to the Plaintiff’s EB account on the same day. Of the 95,00,000,000 won transferred to the EB account, the remainder of 63,000,000 won, excluding the 32,00,000,000 won, was used by the Defendant for 00,000 won and 00,00 won were not 0,000 won and 00,00 won were 60,000 won and 00,000 won were excluding the above EB’s eB’s eB account, but not 00,000 won at the time of its use.

③ In light of the following, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff paid AB KRW 20,000,000 in cash to AB, claiming that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to AB by adding some of its cash to the money that the Plaintiff had incurred for the livelihood of AB, and that the Plaintiff did not submit all relevant financial data.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.