Taxation on the benefit of interest exemption is legitimate.

The gift tax is imposed on the exemption of the obligation to pay the interest accrued, not on the non-interest accrued at a specified time, but on the non-interest accrued at a specified time, and there is no illegality in the disposition of this case.

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2016Nu56303 Disposition of revocation of imposition of gift tax

Park Ho-o

o Head of the tax office

May 17, 2017

June 21, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. The following part of the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked:

On January 2, 2014, the Defendant’s lawsuit against the Plaintiff is dismissed by the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking the revocation of the part exceeding o,o, ando, among the disposition of imposition (including additional tax) of gift tax for the year 2010.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The sum of the attached Form 1 that the defendant against the plaintiff on January 2, 2014

Each imposition of gift tax by the ooo,oo, ando shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

This Court's explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, this Court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

��제2쪽 제12행의 "이하 통칭하여" 앞에 "내oo동 주유소와 관련하여서는 2006. 12. 29., 방o동 주유소, 도o리 주유소와 관련하여서는 각 2008. 5. 2. 체결하였다."를 추가한다. ��제2쪽 [표] 중 순번 2 자금지원란의 "2008. 5. 2."을 "2008. 5. 7."로, 순번 3 자금 지원란의 "2008. 5. 2."을 "2008. 5. 8."로 각 고친다. ��제3쪽 표 중 제2행의 "제4조(지원자금의 상환 및 이자지급)" 다음에 "1. 을은 지원자금의 원본총액을 3년간 거치하고 3년간 12회 3개월마다 균등분할하여 상환하여야 한 다."를 추가한다. ��제3쪽 표 중 제4행의 "지급하여야 한다" 다음에 "(그 중 방o동 주유소, 도o리 주유소와 관련하여 각 2008. 5. 2. 작성된 자금지원계약서에는 지원자금에 대하여 거치기간 이후에는 연 6.5%의 이자를 지급하여야 한다고 기재되어 있다)"를 추가한다. ��제4쪽 제12행의 "2014. 1. 20."을 "2014. 1. 2."로 고친다. ��제4쪽 제15행 다음에 "아. 한편 피고는 2017. 5. 16. 원고에 대한 2010년 귀속 증여세 o,ooo,oooo원의 부과처분(가산세 포함) 중 o,ooo,ooo원(= o,ooo,ooo원 - o,ooo,ooo원)을 초과하는 부분의 부과처분을 직권으로 취소하는 내용의 감액결정을 하였다."를 추가한다. ��제4쪽 제16행의 [인정근거]에 "갑 제25호증, 을 제24호증"을 추가한다.

2. Determination on the claim for revocation of ex officio cancelled tax amount among the instant lawsuit

If an administrative disposition is revoked, the disposition is no longer effective, and no longer exists, and a lawsuit seeking revocation against a non-existent administrative disposition is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Du18202, Dec. 13, 2012). ex officio, the fact that the Defendant rendered a decision to ex officio revoke the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on May 16, 2017 exceeding o,oo,oo, andoo on the part of the disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff in 2010, as seen earlier, on the ground that the claim for revocation of ex officio among the lawsuit in this case is seeking revocation of the disposition without a benefit in the lawsuit, and is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. Determination as to the claim for cancellation of the remainder of the instant disposition

The grounds alleged by the Plaintiff in the trial while filing an appeal are not significantly different from the contents as alleged by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial, and even if each of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in the first instance trial is examined both the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 22, 24, and 26 and the images of Gap evidence No. 23, the fact-finding and the judgment by the first instance court are justifiable. This part of the grounds for this court’s explanation are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment by the first instance court (No. 19 to No. 11, No. 4), except for the following additions, since the corresponding part of the judgment by the first instance court (No. 4) is the same as stated in Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“The instant disposition” and the instant disposition impose gift tax on the exemption of the obligation to pay interest accrued on the funds provided under the instant funding agreement, not on the imposition of gift tax by a fixed period of time on the said funds, and on the exemption of the obligation to pay interest accrued therefrom. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the instant disposition constitutes imposing gift tax on the “loan without compensation between non-specially related persons” under Article 41-4 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, "the part of the lawsuit in this case concerning the claim for revocation of authority among the dispositions in this case shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Accordingly, the corresponding part of the judgment in the first instance court which has different conclusions shall be revoked, the plaintiff's lawsuit against this part shall be dismissed, and the remaining appeal of the plaintiff shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.