Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu Partnership-5077 ( November 24, 2017)

The source of money deposited in the Plaintiff’s borrowed account is only the Plaintiff’s funds, and there is no evidence to deem that the money was donated.

The source of money deposited into the Plaintiff’s borrowed account is only deemed the Plaintiff’s funds, and there is no evidence to deem that the money was donated, and it seems to have been disbursed for the Plaintiff’s private use rather than for the expenses disbursed due to the Plaintiff’s business needs.

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court-2017-Nu-8550

*

*The Director of the Tax Office

Dismissal

2018.03.28

2018.04.25

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

On January 6, 2016, the imposition of gift tax ○○○ (including additional tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on the Plaintiff on January 6, 2016 is revoked.1)

2. Purport of appeal

Among the judgment of the first instance court, the gift tax of ○○○○ (including additional tax) that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiff on January 6, 2016.

Of the disposition of imposition, the part against the plaintiff by the defendant, which was revoked in excess of the ○○○○ Won, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed (the court of first instance shall accept the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, and the court of first instance shall dismiss all the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, the co-defendant of the court of first instance, the joint plaintiff, the defendant, and the court of first instance** the co-defendant of the court of first instance*. Only the defendant shall the defendant, on February 13, 2012, ***** this** the part of the court of first instance, on the part where the disposition imposing gift tax on the ○○○○○○○○ Won (hereinafter referred to as the "party issue part"). As the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment shall be limited to the part where the disposition of imposition of gift

1. Quotation, etc. of judgment in the first instance;

The court's explanation of the instant case is based on the following Paragraph 2 of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition to the amendment, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding each of its attached Form and ‘3. conclusion'). Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. Parts to be corrected;

○ Of the judgment of the first instance court, “Plaintiff*” as “Plaintiff”, and “Plaintiff Company” as “Plaintiff Co-Plaintiffs Association of the first instance court.”

As "g", "Defendant** Head of the Tax Office" is respectively as "Defendant".

○ 3. The part of “D” in paragraphs (4) to (11) shall be deleted below.

○ 2 to 3 inclusive “Evidences 1 through 4, 7, 8, 1, 1, 2, 4, and 6 (Additional number)

the phrase “(including each number)” means “Evidences 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 1, 2, and 4”.

2. Whether each taxation of this case is legitimate

We look at the legitimacy of the part of the issue of the trial among the dispositions.

○○ 4. The plaintiffs' assertion is "A. The plaintiff's assertion".

○ 4 2~5 shall be deleted.

○ 4 6 pages “B” will be deleted.

○ 4 8-9 Happing below.

Therefore, in the disposition of gift tax of this case, the part on the premise that the plaintiff was given a gift from the above ○○○ Won* is illegal.

○ 4 by striking from 7 up to 5 pages below.

○ 5 6~16 deleted.

○ 5 17 pages “B” will be deleted.

○ 7 3 to 4 Happed as follows.

Therefore, in the disposition of gift tax of this case, the part on the premise that the plaintiff was given a gift from the above ○○○ Won* is illegal.

○ 7 5 m2 to 6 m2.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant as to the part of the issue at the trial is justified and accepted.

The judgment of the court of first instance on this part is just in conclusion, and as such, the defendant's defense is justified.

The lawsuit is dismissed for lack of grounds.

1) The Plaintiff stated in the complaint that “2012” gift tax is stated in the complaint, but “2012” is not a tax item to be imposed on an annual basis, and thus, deleted.