National Tax Service Review Donation 2011-0087 (203.30)

The original decision is legitimate, as there is no evidence to prove the existence of the title trust contract.

In the event that the source of funds to acquire real estate has been revealed to the effect that the nominal owner is another spouse, not the nominal owner, the original decision is lawful on the grounds that the nominal owner may presume the funds to have been donated from the spouse, and that the Plaintiff bears the funds to acquire the real estate in this case, or that a separate title trust

2012Guhap643 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

Chuncheon Director of the Tax Office

September 7, 2012

October 19, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 against the plaintiff on December 1, 2011.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 24, 2008, KimCC, the Plaintiff’s wife, completed the registration of ownership transfer to BBB on the grounds of the sales contract on January 11, 2008, the sales price of which is KRW 000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On January 14, 2008, the above KimCC deposited KRW 000 out of the above purchase price into the foreign exchange bank account under the Plaintiff’s name, and deposited KRW 000 out of the above purchase price into the national bank account under the Plaintiff’s name on January 24, 2008, and deposited KRW 000 in total (hereinafter “the price in this case”).

C. As above, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000 on December 1, 201 on the ground that the Plaintiff received KRW 000 from KimCC (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a request for review on December 26, 2011, but the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, and the Commissioner of the National Tax Service,

After deliberation on March 30, 2012, the plaintiff's request for examination was dismissed.

[Grounds for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5-3, Eul evidence 1-3, and the whole purport of the arguments

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On May 1, 1983, the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong O-dong 00, 120.4 square meters, and 0-story 120.4 square meters and 0-story stores above the ground (hereinafter “the instant house”) while working for the Korea Telecommunication Seoul District Office on May 1, 1983, but purchased the instant real estate for KRW 000,000, which was sold to GL and received on March 5, 1990, plus KRW 00,000,000, in total with wage and salary income, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of KimCC, and the instant real estate was registered in title with the Plaintiff’s ownership, and thus, it does not mean that the Plaintiff received the instant payment, which was the purchase price received by the Plaintiff, from KimCC, from the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Relevant legal principles

The burden of proof as to the existence of the requirement of taxation should be demonstrated by the tax authority, but if the other party is presumed to have been subject to the application of the empirical rule, and since the real estate acquired by one spouse in the marriage of the married couple under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act is presumed to be the special property of the nominal owner, if the other spouse is not the nominal owner, then the nominal owner may be presumed to have donated the acquisition fund from the spouse. In this case, the fact that it cannot be deemed to have been donated the acquisition fund due to the fact that the property in question is not the special property of the nominal owner, but the property in question is a nominal trust from the other spouse, not the nominal owner, but the other spouse. In addition, in order to reverse the "Presumption of the special property" under Article 830(1) of the Civil Act, the other spouse must prove that it actually acquired the real property in question by bearing the price for the property in question, and it is difficult to see whether the other spouse actually purchased the real property in question under a title trust with the other spouse through evidence.

(d) Facts of recognition;

The plaintiff acquired the house of this case on February 13, 1986, and (1) the plaintiff acquired the house of this case on May 13, 1986 and completed the registration of ownership transfer from 00 won for purchase and sale on March 5, 1990 (Provided, That the plaintiff's wife acquired the house of this case on April 18, 1991, from 0.10 to 9.0,000 won for lease on the first and second floor on the ground of 9.0,000 won, and the plaintiff's wife acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case on January 24, 2008, and from 190, 30,000 won for 1,000 won for 20,000 won for 1,000 won for 30,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000,000 won for 1,000 won for 3,000 won for 1,00.0

E. Determination

Examining the above facts in light of the relevant legal principles, the real estate acquired by KimCC in its own name is presumed to be the unique property of KimCC, and the entry of evidence No. 6-1, and the witness MF testimony by witnesses shall be paid after deducting 000 won in total of the deposit money of the first and second floor from the purchase price of KRW 000,000, and most of the contents are trusted by the plaintiff, and it is difficult to believe that most of the contents are from the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that KimCC acquired the real estate of this case, or that there was a title trust contract between KimCC and the plaintiff, and it is legitimate to take the disposition of this case by deeming that KimCC donated the money of this case to the plaintiff from the purchase price of this case which the defendant sold the real estate of this case to the plaintiff, and that it was legitimate to take the disposition of this case since the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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

shall be ruled.