Incheon District Court-2013-Gu Partnership-936 ( August 14, 2013)

Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax

In case where a married couple acquires the property as the source of a lottery prize of one side, it shall not be applicable to the donation.

2013Nu46787 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA

the director of the District Tax Office

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Guhap936 Decided April 14, 2013

December 11, 2013

on October 08, 2014

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 6,514,260 for the year 2008, KRW 218,754,380 for the gift tax belonging to the year 2009, and KRW 102,121,190 for the gift tax belonging to the year 2010 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

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

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this court's ruling are to convert tinB's "NB" at the last 2th reduction into "leB" and to avoid in the following paragraphs:

It is the same as the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance to add a judgment on the argument, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

The defendant, even in the court of this case, does not belong to the plaintiff's joint property of the plaintiff's couple.

Since wife-B's unique property, each of the instant dispositions is lawful.

The lottery prize of this case deposited in the deposit account in the name of leB shall be presumed to be the unique property of leB.

However, in light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the presumption that the lottery prize in this case is the unique property of leB, and that the Plaintiff’s husband and wife owns the shares of 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s shares, and otherwise, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable, as it reverses the presumption that the lottery prize in this case is the unique property of leB.

A. At the time of the purchase of lottery tickets on February 8, 2003 by the Plaintiff couple, the Plaintiff operated the interior business, while the leB seems to have no special income as a professional supervisor.

B. The Plaintiff is a bank account in the name of a national bank in the name of a leB bank that received the instant lottery prize.

From October 200 to February 2003, 100 to KRW 100,00 per time deposited money from KRW 100,000 to KRW 60,000, and the living expenses used in the married couple’s community life, such as various insurance premiums and gas costs, were transferred from the above deposit account, which was maintained as it was after the deposit of the lottery (No. 4-1).

C. On February 14, 2003, the Plaintiff couple newly opened 4.8 billion won in the name of leB in the above deposit account.

Of May 26, 2003, 2 billion won was deposited into a single deposit account (A evidence 4-2), and on May 26, 2003, 30 million won was deposited into a company bank account in the name of the Plaintiff, and used as the cost of living (A evidence 5-2). The Plaintiff and leB repeated the maturity and new subscription from each single deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff (A evidence 6-1 to 24, 7).

D. The plaintiff couple and the plaintiff couple are the relatives of the plaintiff and leB in the name of leB.

(A) No. 4-2, No. 5-2) appears to have been lent or donated to the Corporation.

E. The value of real estate and motor vehicle acquired by the plaintiff and leB in their own or joint name

In sum by name, plaintiffs 1,438,740,00 won, leB 1,314,81,000 won are similar to each other (Evidence 3-1, 2).

F. Each of the 1/2 shares of the Plaintiff couple in the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff and leB

The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of them could not be received due to the reasons that the Plaintiff did not have any identification card at the time of receiving the instant lottery ticket is due to the receipt of the instant lottery ticket, is that the deposit account in the name of leB, which is the receipt account, has been used for a long time as the deposit account of the couple’s communal living expenses, or that the details of the use of the instant lottery ticket are sufficiently acceptable in light

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.