Daejeon District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-10155 ( October 22, 2015)

Whether the report regulation of unavoidable reasons is valid or not

(1) As stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, whether a person falls under the scope of exclusion from additional collection of gift tax is determined based on extenuating circumstances.

Article 48 (2) 1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu13435 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

XX National Institute of Science and Technology

Daejeon Head of the District Tax Office

Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap10155 (Pronouncement October 22, 2015)

on 04 April 07, 2016

December 2, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 418,923,900 won, 213,294,240 won, belonging to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2012, 206;

Each disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 323,868,580 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the defendant is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation

The dismissal is dismissed.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

The plaintiff in the first instance court, "the defendant was against the plaintiff on October 2, 2012, and the 418,923,900 reverted to the year 2006.

The court of first instance sought revocation of each disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 213,294,240, KRW 323,868,580.

The court shall grant gift tax of KRW 418,923,90 on October 2, 2012 to the Plaintiff, which was due to the Plaintiff’s 2006.

The portion exceeding 134,051,805 won among the imposition disposition, and the gift tax of KRW 213,294,240 for the year 2006.

The portion exceeding KRW 177,978,175 in the disposition of imposition shall be revoked, and the remaining claims of the plaintiff shall be dismissed.

was made.

The decision of this Court is delivered with respect to the part against which the defendant lost.

The scope of “The gift tax of KRW 418,923,900, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on October 2, 2012, for the year 2006.”

The portion exceeding 134,051,805 won among the imposition disposition, and the gift tax of KRW 213,294,240 for the year 2006.

It is limited to the portion exceeding KRW 177,978,175 among the disposition of imposition.

2. cite the judgment of the court of first instance

The reasons why the court should explain the instant case are written or added as follows:

(2) Except as otherwise expressly provided for in paragraph (1), (2), (2), (2)-B, and 2-C of the first instance judgment

-2) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as that set forth in paragraphs (2)

This shall be cited by the main sentence.

3. A portion used for adding or cutting;

A. Additional parts

The following parts shall be added between the sixth and third parties in the judgment of the first instance.

The defendant against the first land of this case is the district in which the national rental housing complex was planned.

Even if determined, within the planned area with the permission of the head of the Si/Gun/Gu;

An act, such as construction, etc. of a building, shall be accepted as a matter of course with the designation of a planned area.

It does not mean that there is no legal or administrative inevitable reason. Thus, it can be viewed that there was a legal or administrative inevitable reason.

The purport that “no matter is available” is asserted.

However, due to the regulation of the relevant laws, the land No. 1 of this case has been previously used before and after the answer.

If the method of use, other than those for use, is substantially restricted, this is the case of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Reduction due to unavoidable reasons, etc. under the law or administration, as prescribed by Article 38(3) of the Decree;

n. All cases where it is difficult to use. As such, the above Enforcement Decree should be deemed to be “the case where it is difficult to use.”

In the end, the Defendant’s above assertion is accepted on a different premise.

(i) the Act;

B. Parts used for repair;

Nos. 7 through 16 of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.

(v) The defendant shall be subject to the proviso of Article 48(2)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

In addition to the "administrative inevitable reasons", the effect of "to report to the head of the competent tax office."

It argues that the requirements are requirements.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the proviso of Article 48(2)1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Whether it is subject to the exclusion of gift tax collection prescribed by the Act shall be directly public interest of the property contributed.

It is determined according to the existence of an inevitable cause not used in a project, etc. (Supreme Court)

Whether a report has been filed with the head of the competent tax office on January 29, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du25807, Jan. 29,

It is reasonable to deem that it is not determined in accordance with the “whether or not,” and the defendant’s above assertion is acceptable.

shall not be effective.

(1) The proviso to Article 48 (2) 1 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act refers to the relevant property or management by a public-service corporation, etc.

Public interest corporations, etc. to enable the tax authorities to follow-up management whether income is used for the purpose of contribution.

the head of tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment together with the submission of the report as provided in paragraph (5).

The first chapter of this case, which is a property contributed, is stipulated to report the reasons obtained.

The designation of a district for national rental housing complex is made and the consultation compensation procedure is made accordingly.

not less than the completion of the payment of the consultation compensation under section 1 of this case, the tax authority shall withdraw from the land of this case

It is no longer necessary to follow post management as to whether it is used for annual purposes.

(2) If the plaintiff uses the compensation for consultation for the purpose other than the purpose of contribution after the tax office is a tax office.

The gift tax shall be imposed pursuant to Article 48 (2) 4 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Accordingly, this disposition shall be imposed.

A report for post management in this case in which the need for for for post management is not deemed to exist

It is unreasonable to collect gift tax on the grounds of omission.

② The Defendant also transferred the land No. 1 by agreement (the foregoing land is directly owned)

The existence of "legal or administrative inevitable reasons" not used for public-interest projects, etc.

A. Before each of the instant dispositions was known to the public.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are accepted.

Therefore, the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is justified.

The dismissal is dismissed.