Whether the money deposited into the bank account in the name of the plaintiff can be deemed as subject to gift tax

Since it is difficult to recognize that the money of this case was paid for the repayment of the above debt, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Guhap266 Revocation of Notice of Taxation

AA

The Director of the National Tax Service

on March 23, 2016

on October 2016 20

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 43,665,60 on July 1, 2014 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's mother bb is the plaintiff's deposit account (the Japanese bank) at his own deposit account;

The sum of KRW 90,00,000,000 on January 3, 2007, and KRW 100,000,00,00 on January 8, 2007, as well as for the total of KRW 755-20-364637)

190,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case") was remitted.

B. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff donated the instant money from BB, and on January 3, 2007, pursuant to Articles 2 and 4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) 11,908,800 won [i.e., tax base = 60,000,000 won - 30,000 won deducted from the value deducted from the value deducted from the lineal ascendant donation + 1,20,00,000 won + Additional Tax on Additional Tax on Additional Tax on Additional Tax on Additional Tax on Additional Tax on Additional Tax on 00,000 + 4,708,80,000 won + Additional Tax on Additional Tax on 00,000 won + Additional Tax on Additional Tax on 00,000 won for the portion of donation on January 8, 207.

C. On July 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Director of the Tax Tribunal against the instant disposition, but the said claim was dismissed on October 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 15, Evidence No. 15, Evidence No. 1-1, and No. 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 219,229,937 to bB as follows. BB paid KRW 29,100,000 to the Plaintiff from April 2004 to December 2006 the full repayment of the above debt. BB paid KRW 29,10,000 to the Plaintiff on January 3, 2007 and January 8, 2007 with the instant monetary payment in order to repay the above debt, bB paid KRW 129,937 won (=29,229,937 - KRW 29,100,00 - 190,000 - 129,000,000). The Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s debt and debt settlement with the instant monetary payment under BB’s 129,937b, and it is unlawful for the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff’s debt and debt settlement under B’s 00,000 won.

A) BB had been issued and used Samsung Card under the Plaintiff’s name. BB, once the Plaintiff paid the said credit card payment, agreed that BB shall later pay it to the Plaintiff. The amount repaid by the Plaintiff in lieu of the Samsung Card payment made by BB from 2001 to 2003 is KRW 68,345,609 in total, such as credit card use fees and cash services accrued from 2003 to 2003. Accordingly, the Plaintiff lent KRW 68,345,609 to B.

B) BB withdrawn and used the money from the above passbook under the Plaintiff’s name in 2005 with the Defendant’s Bank and Han Bank Mypbook. The sum of the principal and interest is KRW 65,303,263 (the amount withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s Mypbook).

755-**-364*** through a deposit account, bank 114-**-515*** after deposit in the deposit account, bank 114-***515**** bank 114-6** bb and bb in the deposit account. bb agreed to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff loaned 65,303,263 won to bb.

C) The Plaintiff’s KRW 8,00,000,000 on July 16, 2001, and KRW 6,000,00 on August 13, 2001;

On June 20, 2002, a total of KRW 17,500,000 was lent.

D) On April 8, 2006, the Plaintiff, while married on April 8, 2006, received a total of KRW 10,050,000 from the neighbors, and immediately lent it to bB.

E) The Plaintiff received a school expense loan from 2000 to 2004 and repaid the principal and interest of KRW 27,476,265, and bb agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff, as such,

Accordingly, the Plaintiff lent KRW 27,476,265 to bB. Even if the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lent the said money to bB, 27,476,265 won equivalent to the Plaintiff’s school expenses agreed to be borne by bB out of the instant money is exempt from gift tax pursuant to Article 35(4)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the said money is subject to taxation is unlawful.

F) On April 8, 2006, the Plaintiff disbursed 30,554,800 won for marriage expenses, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay it to the Plaintiff by bB. Accordingly, the Plaintiff loaned 30,554,800 won to bB. Although the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lent bB to bB, 30,554,80 won for the Plaintiff’s marriage expenses agreed to bear bB out of the instant amount is exempt from taxation pursuant to Article 35(4)3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, but the Defendant’s disposition of this case based on the premise that the said amount is subject to taxation is unlawful.

2) The Defendant issued the instant disposition with respect to the instant money paid in 2007 for the purpose of imposing an excessive penalty intentionally to the Plaintiff, which is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith (hereinafter referred to as “B assertion”).

3) After the amendment of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act had been made, the amount of donated property for lineal descendants of the lineal ascendants has been changed from 30,000,000 to 50,000 won. In the instant disposition, the Defendant had been subject to the deduction of donated property under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act which was revised in favor of the taxpayers, but the Defendant applied the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act before the amendment and disposed of the instant disposition by applying 30,000,000 won to the amount of donated property for the lineal descendants of the lineal ascendants and descendants (hereinafter referred to as the “Section III”).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion

A) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, insofar as the deposit in the name of a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name, etc. were made for purposes other than donation, the need to prove such fact is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13,

B) As seen earlier, since the instant money was deposited from the deposit account of bB to the Plaintiff’s deposit account, the said money is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff by bB. The Plaintiff must prove that the said money was paid for the purpose of repaying BB’s loan obligations to the Plaintiff, not for the purpose of donation.

However, considering the following facts or circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), and the following facts or circumstances, and the fact that the foreign transaction conditions can be created at will between closely related parties under the common interest of avoiding tax burden, it is difficult to recognize that each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, which corresponds to the plaintiff's argument, is not trustable, and that the plaintiff lent BB a total sum of KRW 219,29,937, and that the money in this case was paid for the repayment of the above debt. Accordingly, the amount equivalent to school expenses and marriage expenses among the funds in this case cannot be deemed non-taxable. Accordingly, the plaintiff's assertion that the above money in this case was paid for the repayment of the debt in this case is without merit.

(1) A majority of the sales revenue of Samsung Card, which the Plaintiff claimed that BB was actually using, is recognized as having occurred in Incheon, from November 30, 2002 to January 27, 2005, but it is insufficient to recognize that BB actually used the sales revenue and cash service details of the above Samsung Card, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff asserts that bB actually used the above Samsung Card even in light of the fact that bB deposited the amount equivalent to the Samsung Card price incurred from June 2005 to February 2006 in the plaintiff's deposit account. However, when considering the overall purport of bB's argument in each of the above certificates No. 1 and No. 15, the plaintiff's deposit account (the Japanese bank bank 755-*-364**) from June 22, 2005 to February 27, 2006 and the amount deposited to the plaintiff for the same period as bB's deposit account (the above facts are as listed below.

The time of withdrawal of the Samsung Card price and its amount deposited by BBB in the Plaintiff’s deposit account.

The amount of money deposited by bB in the Plaintiff’s deposit account because it is inconsistent with the time and amount of money.

It is difficult to conclude that the payment was made under the name of the Samsung Card price (the plaintiff is the plaintiff bb).

- - Other

No. 50

Samsung Card Price

Details of withdrawal (won)

bb

Details of deposits (won)

June 22, 2005 2,500,000

June 27, 2005 180,733

June 27, 2005 1,852,420

June 27, 2005 1,000,000

5 June 27, 2005 401,459

June 30, 2000,000

July 26, 2005 2,500,000

8 July 26, 2005 177,406

9 July 26, 2005 2,436,674

July 29, 2005 1,000,000

November 1, 2005 1,500,000

August 26, 2005 174,839

August 26, 2005 607,980

August 30, 2005 6,000,000

August 31, 2005 1,000,000

September 30, 2005 1,000,000

October 23, 2005 400,000

October 26, 2005 169,326

October 26, 2005 557,614

Of the money deposited in the deposit account, 11,20,00 won, aggregate of the amounts listed as 1,4,7,11,17,21,24, and 30 Nos. 6,10,220,000 of the money deposited in the deposit account is deposited in the use of the Samsung Card, and the amount listed as 6,10,15,16,20,20,23, and 29 of the money is deposited in the interest of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against bB. However, the time and amount of payment for each of the money described as 1,4,7,11,17, 21, 24, and 30 of the table below is not consistent with the time of withdrawal of the Samsung Card and its amount.

Table 1

- 8-

October 31, 2005 1,000,000

November 20, 2001 1,050,000

November 28, 2005 635,536

November 30, 2000,000

December 19, 2001,350,000

December 26, 2006 970,853

January 1, 2006 150,000

January 1, 2006 1,350,000

January 31, 2006 50,000

February 3, 2006 1,400,000

February 25, 2006 920,000

31 February 27, 2006 471,860

Total 8,164,840 25,250,000

(2) It is recognized that bbb has deposited each of the above money in the Plaintiff’s bank account 14-20-515840. However, as seen in paragraph (3) and (4) above, the fact that bbb has deposited the money in the above bank account as stated in Table 1, even though bB deposited the money in addition to the above money, as seen above. If bB deposited the money in the above bank account with the entire purport of the oral argument in No. 15, it is difficult to conclude that the money was deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account under the name of bbB and the Plaintiff’s bank 75-364* 20,000,000,000,000,000 won were deposited in the above bank account as stated in Section 2, bbb and the above money was deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account under the name of 20,000,000 won was deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account.

work date No.

bb

Money deposited (won)

Note 00

Amount paid (won)

April 6, 2004 900,000

April 14, 2004 550,000

June 8, 2004 700,000

June 17, 2004 200,000

July 6, 2004 800,000

July 12, 2004 550,000

August 9, 2004 900,000

August 9, 2004 550,000

September 8, 2004 900,000

September 9, 2004 550,000

November 2, 2004 1,900,000

November 9, 2004 550,000

December 1, 2004 1,700,000

December 14, 2004 550,000

January 3, 2005 1,000,000

January 11, 2005 500,000

February 2, 2005 1,000,000

February 10, 2005 500,000

February 28, 2005 1,000,000

March 9, 2005 500,000

April 4, 2005 1,000,000

April 10, 2005 500,000

May 2, 2005 1,000,000

May 10, 2005 500,000

Table 2

June 1, 2005 1,000,000

June 10, 2005 500,000

June 30, 2000,000

July 11, 2005 500,000

July 29, 2005 1,000,000

August 10, 2005 500,000

August 31, 2005 1,000,000

on September 10, 2005 456,000

September 30, 2001 1,000,000

October 10, 2005 500,000

October 31, 2005 1,000,000

November 15, 2005 500,000

November 30, 2005 1,000,000

on February 3, 2006 1,400,000

on March 7, 2006 700,000

April 5, 2006 700,000

May 3, 2006 700,000

June 1, 2006 700,000

on July 3, 2006 700,000

August 2, 2006 700,000

September 4, 2006 700,000

October 5, 2006 700,000

November 1, 2006 700,000

December 4, 2006 700,000

December 29, 2006 700,000

Total 29,100,000 8,756,000

(3) The Plaintiff’s deposit account 114-20-515840 00 future

amount of the withdrawal of the national bank on the date;

Japan Bank 114-**-515**

Account entry amount (won)

Japan Bank 755-**-364**

Account entry amount (won)

March 27, 2005 4,300,600 4,300,000

March 29, 2000,600 8,000,000

April 13, 2005 2,000,600

April 24, 2005 2,900,600 1,000,000

May 25, 2005 900,000

May 28, 2005 1,400,500 1,400,000

May 28, 2005 1,040,500 1,040,000

June 2, 2000,500 4,000,000

December 15, 2005 490,500 490,000

Total 25,034,400 15,930,000 4,300,000

A total of KRW 4,960,00 on November 2, 2004 and KRW 3,000 on November 24, 2004, including KRW 3,000,000 on November 24, 2004, KRW 2,960,000 on March 18, 2005, KRW 10,000 on March 7, 2005, KRW 2,000 on March 7, 2005, KRW 8,000 on March 29, 2005, KRW 39,000 on April 13, 200, KRW 14,000 on April 24, 200 on April 24, 200, and KRW 6,00 on June 6, 200 on June 16, 200 on each of the following grounds:

The plaintiff was issued by the National Bank and the Han Bank in his own name, and the details of money deposited in the bank account 114-***-515**** deposit account and Japanese bank 755-**364** The details of money deposited in the bank account are as follows:

Table 3

on the date of the withdrawal of one bank (won)

Japan Bank 114-**-515**

Account entry amount (won)

Japan Bank 755-**-364**

Account entry amount (won)

March 2, 2005 21,300,600 21,300,000

March 10, 2000,600 10,000,000

June 2, 2000,600 2,000,000

Total 33,301,800 12,000,000 21,300,000

Table 4

According to the above facts of recognition, one bank under the name of the plaintiff and the Myman of the National Bank;

Japan Bank 114-**-515** The aggregate of the amounts deposited in the deposit account* KRW 25,930,000.

However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, KRW 49,960,00, which was deposited in the bank account 114-*** 25,303,263 of the principal and interest deposited in one bank and National Bank Myspbook, cannot be deemed as one bank and National Bank Mypbook, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff used KRW 65,303,263 of the principal and interest deposited in one bank and National Bank Mypbook and National Bank Mypbook, and that bB agreed to pay them to the Plaintiff.

(4) The Plaintiff’s Jeju Bank 755-**-364** in the deposit account bb, in the future 8,00,000 won on July 15, 2001, and 6,000,000 won on August 13, 2001, and 3,500,000 won on June 20, 2002, are deemed to have been withdrawn, but in light of the fact that the money deposit and withdrawal transactions between the Plaintiff and B was frequently made in the above deposit account, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent 17,50,000 won to B on June 20, 202, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(5) Nos. 15 and 19 alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,050,000 to B, which the Plaintiff received from B, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(6) According to the details of loans from the National Bank and the Nonghyup Bank attached to the president (the President No. 72 to 90 pages), the Plaintiff received school expenses from the National Bank and the Nonghyup Bank from September 8, 200 to March 8, 2004, and paid the principal and interest of KRW 27,476,265, but there is no evidence to prove that bB agreed to pay the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the principal and interest of the school expenses thereafter. The Plaintiff asserted that the amount of KRW 27,476,265, out of the instant amount should be exempted from taxation pursuant to Article 46 subparag. 5 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, Article 35 subparag. 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, if it is deemed that 27,476,265, out of the instant amount was non-taxable under Article 35 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and even if it is under common provisions, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount was not taxed under Article 465 of the Inheritance Tax Act.

(7) It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,554,80 with the marriage expense by itself, and that BB agreed to pay it to the Plaintiff later, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

(8) During the pleading of this case, the Plaintiff did not submit objective data to recognize that the Plaintiff had 219,229,937 won to 00 from 201 to 2005. On the other hand, bb acquired 00 Dong-gu, Incheon on May 30, 1985 to 666m2, but sold it to 0 March 28, 2003. On April 15, 2003, 200 Dong-gu, 738-3, 158m2, 1,158m2, 200 to 30.1,268m2,268m2,268m2,20 to 30m2,20,268m2,20, 200b, and 306m2,268m2,208m2,206 to 30.7m27,200.

2) Judgment on the argument

Article 26-2(1)4 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 10405, Dec. 27, 2010) provides that gift taxes may be imposed for ten years from the date on which the gift tax is assessable. If a taxpayer fails to file a return under Articles 67 and 68 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the gift tax may be imposed for 15 years from the date on which the tax is assessable. However, the tax is imposed in the Republic of Korea.

The fact that a gift tax return under Articles 67 and 68 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act was not filed is not disputed between the parties, and the defendant is entitled to gift tax for 15 years from the date on which the gift tax can be imposed. The defendant's disposition of this case was made when 2014 passed since the payment of the amount of this case was made by the defendant, and it seems that the plaintiff did not report the gift tax base on the amount of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant intentionally and late the disposition of this case in order to collect more additional tax from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is

- 15 -

3) Judgment on the assertion

Article 53 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that when a donee receives a donation from a lineal ascendant, 30,000 won shall be deducted from the value of donation. On January 1, 2014, where a donee receives a donation from a lineal ascendant under Act No. 12168, he/she shall deduct 50,000,000 won from the value of donation. Article 1 and Article 2 of the Addenda of the above Act provide that the above Act shall take effect from January 1, 2014, and the above amended Act shall apply from the portion of donation received after its enforcement.

However, the fact that the instant money was paid before January 1, 2014 is as seen earlier. Therefore, in calculating the amount of gift tax against the Plaintiff, the instant disposition that deducted KRW 30,000,000 from the amount of gift tax from a lineal ascendant is lawful. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

partnership.