It is reasonable to levy gift tax on the property donated in advance and evaluate the inherited property of this case.

It is reasonable to levy gift tax on the property donated in advance and evaluate the inherited property of this case.

Article 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Disposition of revocation of imposition of gift tax, etc. by the Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap5631

N

O Head of tax office

on December 23, 2016

November 11, 2016

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On December 4, 2015, the portion exceeding KRW 77,192,768 of the disposition of imposition of inheritance tax of KRW 257,691,410 by Defendant AA head of the tax office shall be revoked, and the imposition of gift tax of KRW 59,032,80 by Defendant AA head of the tax office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff and the ES, ED, ED, and EH are “the deceased on June 15, 2012,” hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

) The children are children of each subparagraph.

B. On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the inheritance tax return, such as filing a report on the inherited property value of KRW 25,000,000,000,000,42/154 shares among the 202-11 large scale 430 square meters, 203-6 large scale 83 square meters, and 202-11 large scale 202-10 and 202-11 of the same Act (hereinafter “the instant real property”).

C. The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the inheritance tax reported by the Plaintiff from August 3, 2015 to September 9, 2015

On January 13, 2004, the plaintiff on January 13, 2004

20,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case") transferred to the account shall be deemed the money that the deceased donated to the plaintiff, and the head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the domicile of the plaintiff shall notify the plaintiff to the head of the tax office of this case.

D. Accordingly, on December 4, 2015, the head of Defendant BB Tax Office: (a) gift taxing KRW 59,032,800 on the Plaintiff (Additional acid)

A disposition imposing tax (including tax) (hereinafter referred to as "disposition of gift tax of this case") was made.

E. Meanwhile, around 204 and around 2006, the head of the Defendant SSS Tax Office additionally confirmed that the deceased donated a total of KRW 559,861,813 in cash to SS, ECC, and EH, and that the real estate of this case was sold at KRW 848,050,000 to YV and EN on September 14, 2012, together with an amount of KRW 112/154 out of KRW 00,000,000 and KRW 848,050,00,000 from the initial amount of KRW 46,979,581,813 of the total amount of money donated by EH from the deceased and the sales amount of the real estate of this case, and subsequently confirmed that the real estate of this case was sold at KRW 759,861,81,813 of the inheritance tax base, including the additional tax on KRW 205,201,9751.

F. On February 25, 2016, the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with the judgment on each of the dispositions of this case to the Tax Tribunal.

The Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on April 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 1 through 3, 6, 9 (including paper numbers)

Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant money is not the money donated from the Deceased, but the money that the Plaintiff entrusted to the Deceased in around 1981 and was returned to the Deceased in around 2004. Therefore, the instant gift tax disposition on a different premise is unlawful.

2) The instant money is not the money donated from the deceased, and the instant real estate was sold to EV for KRW 255,00,000 on June 4, 2012, and the market value was 466,979,581 won.

Other than this, KRW 255,00,000 shall be deemed to be the deceased’s losses. Even if not, the Deceased shall be deemed to be the deceased’s losses.

Since an agreement was made to provide 150,000,000 won in return for the provision of training expenses to enable a person to act as a camping player, the deceased's obligation in the tax base of inheritance tax is the deceased's obligation.

150,000,000 won must be excluded. Accordingly, in the disposition of the inheritance tax of this case on a different premise

Some of them are illegal.

- 4-

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) The nature of the instant money

In the lawsuit of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, the example of the name of the donor recognized by the tax authority.

to the extent that the bank is found to have been withdrawn and deposited in a bank account, etc. in the taxpayer’s name, such bank

To be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, the withdrawal of such deposits and deposits in the name of the taxpayer.

If there are special circumstances, such as that gold, etc. was made for any purpose other than donation, this shall not apply.

The necessity of proof is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

§ 6).

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings, this case

money is part of the price for the disposal of the land under the name of the deceased, upon request of the deceased, AD.

Inasmuch as the fact that money was remitted can be recognized, this money is net in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine.

is presumed to be the amount that a person donated to the Plaintiff.

The evidence Nos. 3-3, 4, 5-1, 2, and 6-1, 2, and 7-1 of the evidence Nos. 3-5

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the land such as 00 - 00 - 94 - - 00 - 94 -

사건 토지'라 한다)에 관하여 1967. 10. 23. 원고 명의의 소유권이전등기가 마쳐져 있었고 이 사건 토지는 1981. 12.경 수용되었던 사실, 한편 원고는 이 사건 각 처분에 대한 조세심판원의 심판 당시 '원고가 이 사건 토지에 대한 수용보상금을 수령하여 망인에게 통장과 도장을 건넸고, 1982년경 원고가 망인에게 수용보상금의 반환을 요청하였으나 망인이 이를 거절하였으며, 2004년경에 이르러 망인이 이DD으로 하여금 원고에게 다 갚았다고 전하라고 하면서 200,000,000원을 송금하도록 하였다'는 내용이 기재된 이SS, 이DD 명의의 확인서를 제출한 사실을 인정할 수 있기는 하나, 다른 한편으로 같은 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 이 사건 토지에 관하여 원고 명의로 소유권이전등기가 마쳐질 당시 원고는 20대 초반에 불과하였을 뿐만 아니라 이 사건 토지의 수용보상금은 곧바로 망인에게 전달되었던 점, 원고 스스로도 밝히고 있듯이 원고는 1972년경 이미 망인이 반대하는 결혼을 하였고 망인이 장녀가 1979년경

As a result of the Plaintiff’s liability for death, the deceased and the deceased maintained a long-term inconvenience relationship and see it.

In light of the fact that the deceased’s property appears to have never been involved in such property, etc.

The land of this case is merely a title trust land under the name of the plaintiff and thus an expropriation report on the land of this case

The plaintiff did not have the right to the prize from the beginning, or even if not, the plaintiff did not have the right to the prize to the deceased.

It can not be ruled out that all the rights to the confinement compensation have been waived at the time of the establishment of the panel.

In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to reverse the above presumption solely with the facts acknowledged earlier, and rather, Eul evidence No. 11, hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case". The plaintiff only prepared the written confirmation of this case by coercion of the public official in charge on the ground that Does keep their own seals, and argued that Does are not directly prepared. However, although Gap evidence No. 14 is not stated in the written evidence of this case, there is no reason for Does to keep Does as well as the written evidence of this case.

the written body of the certificate (No. 12) and the written body of the certificate of this case, which appears to be

분되는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 원고의 위 주장을 믿기 어렵다 �의 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고는 피고 북대구세무서의 조사 당시 망인으로부터 이 사건 돈을 증여받았다는 것을 인정하는 취지의 서면을 작성한 사실도 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 사건 돈은 원고가 망인으로부터 증여받은 돈으로 봄이 상당하다.

- - Other

2) Market price of the instant real estate

former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013);

Article 60 (1) and (2) The value of property on which inheritance tax is levied shall be in accordance with the market price as of the date inheritance commences.

prescribed by the President of the Republic of Korea to include those which are deemed to be the market price.

The former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 24358, Feb. 15, 2013)

(hereinafter the same shall apply) a seller within six months before or after the commencement date of the market price as of the commencement date of the inheritance.

Where there is a room, it shall be the sales price, but Article 12-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

The transaction value is objectively unfair due to transactions with a person with a special relationship referred to in each subparagraph.

such exclusion, and the enforcement of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

Decree Article 12-2 (1) 1 of the Decree is within the second degree of spouse of a lineal descendant among persons with a special relationship.

The Act regulates any paternal blood relationship.

As to the instant real estate, on June 4, 2012, the purchase price between the deceased and EV is to be paid.

255,000,000 won was concluded, and on June 29, 2012, ownership was held in the name of V.

The fact that the previous registration was completed is not a dispute between the parties, but this V is also the wife of this NN, on the other hand, without dispute between the parties. Among 00 00 - 00 - 202-11 - 430 m2, 112/154 m2 and 84 m2/154 m2, September 14, 2012, the real estate of this case was sold to 86,979,581 - 46,97 , and the real estate of this case was assessed as 46,979,581 - as mentioned above. According to the evidence No. 13, the standard market price of the real estate of this case between the deceased and V at the time of the purchase and sale contract with 342,729,837 - and the value of the real estate of this case cannot be seen as the market price of this case's V and 15 m27 m2.

3) Deductions of deceased’s obligations

In full view of the purport of the entry and pleading in Eul’s evidence No. 7, the instant real estate was sold in KRW 848,00,000 among the shares of KRW 00,000,000 and KRW 112/154,00 among the shares of KRW 430,000,000,000 among the shares of KRW 112/150,000,000,000 were paid to LeeV.

The remainder was paid to DoD et al., on the other hand, HaH et al. filed against the Plaintiff et al.

In the small case, the investigative agency pays 150,000,000 won to EV at the will of the deceased.

on the other hand, it may be recognized that the statement to the effect that the statement was confirmed, on the other hand,

According to Article 14(1)3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, five years before the date inheritance commences by an ancestor

A donation obligation made to a person other than an inheritor shall constitute a obligation deducted from the value of the inherited property.

In addition, the opposing circumstances must be proved by the Plaintiff, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

In addition to the examination, 150,000,000 already made to V prior to the death of 5 years before June 15, 2007 by the Deceased.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the source was finally responsible for the source’s gift obligations, and otherwise,

there is no evidence to prove that there is no such evidence.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, all of the above arguments by the plaintiff cannot be accepted, and the disposition of this case is legitimate.

- 8-

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.