It is reasonable to deem that the decedent transferred the instant money to the Plaintiff and transferred the ownership thereof.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant transferred the instant money to the Plaintiff and transferred the ownership thereof, and it is difficult to deem that it constitutes living expenses.

Article 31(4) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

District Court 2018Guhap277

Kim 00

000 director of the tax office

September 20, 2018

October 25, 2018

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant on February 1, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Appointed JJ (hereinafter referred to as the “Appointment”)

(i) the imposition of 91,547,650 won (including additional taxes) for the inheritance tax and the selector;

The gift tax reverted to March 2013, KRW 7,237,730 (including additional taxes), and the gift tax reverted to September 2013.

27,691,200 won (including additional taxes) shall be revoked in all.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The KimCC (hereinafter “the decedent”) died on October 26, 2014, and the wife of the KimCC.

In the case of the Plaintiff and his children, the designated parties and Kim Z jointly inherited the inheritee’s property, the Plaintiff, the designated parties

I and Kim Z did not report inheritance tax.

B. Before the death of the decedent, the decedent shall post ten posts from March 23, 2010 to April 28, 2014, as follows:

the account in the name of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "each of the accounts of this case") in total of 530,493,017 won (hereinafter referred to as "one of the accounts of this case").

The money was remitted (hereinafter referred to as "money").

C. Before the death of an decedent, the decedent shall continue six times from August 5, 2009 to September 16, 2013 as follows:

The total amount of KRW 225,000,000 was remitted to the account in the name of the selected person (hereinafter referred to as “total amount of each remittance in 2013”).

10 million won is 20 million won or more ("20 million won or more").

D. The Defendant considers that each of the aforementioned transfers by the decedent constitutes a prior donation:

On February 1, 2017, inheritance tax of 95,374,250 won (including additional tax) shall be imposed on the plaintiff and the selected person, and the selected person

In August 2009, gift tax of KRW 16,965,618 (including additional tax), KRW 7,237,730 (including additional tax), and KRW 27,691,200 (including additional tax) on March 2013.

E. Before the determination of the above objection, the Plaintiff and the designated parties filed an objection, and the Defendant subsequently deducted KRW 9,157,400 from the inherited property of the inheritee and corrected the inheritance tax determined and notified as above to KRW 91,547,650 by reducing the said determined and notified amount to KRW 91,547,650 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”), and on April 13, 2017, the Plaintiff and the designated parties dismissed the said objection. The Plaintiff and the designated parties filed an appeal on May 25, 2017, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed it on November 27, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 11, 18, 19, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) As to KRW 1

A) Since each of the instant accounts in the Plaintiff’s name was used for the purpose designated by the decedent or for the cost of living as the money deposited in each of the said accounts as the account jointly managed by the decedent and the Plaintiff was used for the purpose designated by the decedent, the KRW 1 that was remitted by the decedent to each of the instant accounts is not gratuitously transferred to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the KRW

B) Even if the first gold source constituted donated property, all or part of the first gold source, including gas and electricity charges, local taxes, insurance premiums, housing management expenses, credit card settlement expenses, etc., 107,405,233 won in total, and 124,69,905 won in total, and 160,300,000 won in cash withdrawal.

Total KRW 392,405,138 is subject to non-taxation because it was paid with living expenses.

C) Even if the KRW 1 is not a living expense, the Plaintiff’s total of KRW 17 million returned from June 2010 to April 2012 (i.e., KRW 2 million on June 1, 2010 + KRW 3 million on July 9, 2010 + KRW 200 million on September 22, 2010 + KRW 200,000 on November 21, 201 + KRW 200,000 on November 21, 201 + KRW 100,000 on February 18, 201 + KRW 100,000 on March 18, 201 + KRW 100,000 on July 1, 201 + KRW 400,000 on September 1, 201) shall be excluded.

2) As to KRW 2

A) Around April 2010, the decedent was liable for the repayment of KRW 250,000,000 to Kim Z, which is his/her father. However, around April 2010, the decedent leased OO apartment-dong OEOEOEOEOOEOOEOOEOOEOOEOOEOOEOOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOEOE.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) As to KRW 1

A) As to the assertion that donation does not constitute gift

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, etc. for other purpose than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13,

However, in a case where it is found that the facts alleged to have been alleged in light of the empirical rule in the course of a specific lawsuit seeking revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the person liable for duty payment disputing the illegality of the taxation disposition is not appropriate to apply the empirical rule, or there are special circumstances to exclude the application of such empirical rule in the relevant case.

However, if such an empirical rule is not recognized, a taxation requirement is returned in principle.

The tax authority shall prove the actual status of the spouse. The deposit in the name of one spouse between husband and wife shall be made between the spouses.

If withdrawn and deposited into a deposit account in the name of the other spouse, a simple joint

Since there are various causes, such as convenience of living, entrustment and management of one spouse’s funds, and payment of living expenses for family members, the mere fact that such withdrawal and deposit was revealed cannot be presumed to have been a taxable fact that the relevant deposit was donated to the other spouse in light of the empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du41937, Sept. 10, 2015).

According to the statements in the health care unit, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 4 to 7 as to this case, the plaintiff

A. On March 23, 2010, KRW 100 million, out of KRW 200 million remitted from an ancestor, was deposited in the trust account under the name of the Plaintiff on March 24, 2010, and terminated on September 27, 2010. The remainder of KRW 100 million was deposited in the trust account under the name of the Plaintiff on March 26, 2010, and terminated on February 21, 201 and February 25, 2011; the Plaintiff deposited KRW 50 million, out of KRW 70,000,000,000 from the decedent on June 30, 201; the Plaintiff deposited the trust account under the name of the Plaintiff on July 22, 2010; and the Plaintiff received KRW 30,000,000,000 from the decedent on June 30, 201, under the name of the Plaintiff on January 25, 2011.

The facts of the above recognition shall be acknowledged in accordance with the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 18 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

The following circumstances, i.e., a trust account in the name of the plaintiff immediately after most deposits; or

It shall be deposited and operated for a long time in a regular deposit account, and then withdrawn from a trust account or a regular deposit account.

(1) The money in this case has been transferred to a new trust account or a regular deposit account in the name of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was operated in the manner of deposit, and the plaintiff's winning from the decedent in operating the above money.

There is no material that can be deemed to have received or deposited in the account; 2. Each account of this case

in addition to the remitted money of the decedent, the money deposited by the decedent's his/her father or his/her wife, and his/her entry

The gold money, etc. (300,000,000 won, October 5, 2010, Plaintiff 12,000,000,000 won, as of Apr. 21, 2010, her son Kim Z, Kim Z, and her her son, her

10,000 won, 10 million won, 10,000 won, 200,000 won, 200,000 won, 200,000 won, 200,000 won, 200,000 won, 200,000,000 won, and

3. Of the inherited property of the inheritee, there is a mixture of considerable parts of 15 million won.

Separately, 6.8 million won (other than this, real estate 580 million won with inherited property, insurance money, etc.)

5,000,000 won, and the predecessor has operated a reasonable financial asset in his name.

In the meantime, there is a clear reason for entrusting the management of assets to the Plaintiff under the name of a vehicle with a wide variety of reasons.

4. In light of the contents of withdrawals from each of the accounts of this case, the Plaintiff withdraws cash in a considerable amount of money.

the Plaintiff’s cash withdrawal amount of KRW 160,300,000,000,000,000,000 as claimed by the Plaintiff), as well as the same.

N. N.N. no material exists to verify where the said cash is used, and the respondent’s assertion

124,69,905 won out of the total amount of remittance to relatives of the heir, approximately 85 million out of the details

(1) The amount of money deposited to the Plaintiff’s child or the Defendant’s son’s son’s order

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that the withdrawal was made in cash, and it is actually made due to a lot of details withdrawn in cash.

It cannot be determined whether it is given to the relatives of the deceased, and 5. The following is as follows:

The defendant has already donated part of the money that the defendant remitted to the plaintiff as living expenses, etc.

In full view of the fact that the decedent does not include property, the first gold source is paid to the plaintiff.

Since it is reasonable to see that he/she transferred ownership by transferring money, the first gold source constitutes donated property.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B) As to the assertion that it is exempt from tax as living expenses

Article 46 subparagraph 5 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 13557, Dec. 15, 2015; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that gift tax shall not be imposed on living expenses, etc. recognized by social norms.

Note A 6, 9, and 4, respectively, to the health department, to the facts of the above recognition; and

In other words, the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire pleadings:

The amount of KRW 30 million deposited in this Plaintiff’s account on March 23, 2010, KRW 5 million on September 5, 2011, and KRW 200,000,000 deposited in this Plaintiff’s account

10. On March 16, 2012, KRW 2 million on March 16, 2012, KRW 1,9610,00 won on March 24, 2014, and KRW 500,000 on July 24, 2014, the amount of considerable remittance, such as KRW 50,00,00,00, was deemed to have been remitted for the purpose of living expenses, etc., and was not included in donated property. As seen earlier, it includes only KRW 1,00,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,00 won was used for the purpose of living expenses. 2.3. In light of the fact that there is no evidence to view that the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to his children or relatives and the amount of cash withdrawal for the inheritee’s children or relatives, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff’s savings account was considerably paid to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s funds raised out of KRW 1, etc.

C) As to the assertion of return of donated property

The main sentence of Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "where the donated property (excluding money) is returned within the reporting deadline under Article 68 under an agreement between the parties concerned, the donation shall be deemed not to have existed from the beginning."

Money donated is mixed with cash assets held by the donee at the same time as the donation;

In reality, there is a special characteristic that can not be identified separately from the property of the donee.

There is no way to verify the identity of such money with the money returned, and the money is also donated.

Gift tax shall be returned easily by repeating the donation and return within the deadline for reporting the gift tax.

Inasmuch as it is likely to be abused for avoidance, the term “money” under Article 31(4) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

In order to enhance the efficiency of taxation administration and to block the attempt to avoid gift tax, the portion of "donations" shall:

Where the tax return was made by the deadline for filing the tax return, the object to be deemed to have never been donated from the beginning;

was excluded from money in this case, and once once the donee received a donation of money to the donor,

After all, even if money equivalent to the same amount is returned by the termination of agreement, legal aspects shall be subject to

In economic respect, the property of the donee has already been substantially increased;

In addition, the return by termination of the agreement of the gift contract shall be the original donation and other disposal of property separate from the original donation.

In light of the relevant circumstances, in the case of donation of money, within the reporting deadline for gift tax

return of money equivalent to the same amount, the gift tax shall not be deemed not to have existed, even if it is returned.

It cannot be said that the subject of imposition is unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Du7384, Feb. 18, 2016).

In light of the above legal principles, the health team and the Plaintiff caused the decedent as seen earlier.

Inasmuch as money was already received from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, from June 2010.

As between April 2012 and April 2012, even if the sum of KRW 117 million was remitted to the decedent, this shall not apply.

the property shall not be deemed to have been returned and excluded from the donated property (On the other hand, the defendant shall not be prior to the

the next day to the decedent from among the amounts remitted by the plaintiff, such as remittance made on November 26, 2013

The amount obvious to be immediately given is, unlike the above provisions, already given by reflecting the reality.

Each disposition of this case, except from the property, but the aggregate of 17,000 million won claimed by the plaintiff

Transfer of a member of the Board is considerably possible in light of specific circumstances, such as each remittance day does not coincide with the date of donation.

The Plaintiff’s return of donated property cannot be seen as the return of donated property, and did not exclude it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s objection

Part of the assertion itself is without merit.

2) As to KRW 2

As seen earlier, since the decedent remitted KRW 2,00,00 (the total sum of KRW 12,00,000,000 on September 16, 2013 and KRW 12,00,000) to the account in the name of the selected person, the remittance of KRW 2 shall be presumed as the donation to the selected person by the decedent, and the Plaintiff must prove that KRW 2,00,000 was not remitted for the purpose of donation.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 11, 14, 22, his/her dependent around April 2010

The fact that the deceased Kim Z and the deceased will reside in the OOO-dong OOOO-dong OOOOOO-dong OOOOOO-dong OOOO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong Z-owned at around that time, that around that time, the deceased paid KRW 100 million, equivalent to the difference in the market price of each of the above apartment leases, as a deposit for lease, that the deceased deceased Kim Z-owned from around August 5, 2010 to August 16, 2013, that the deceased Kim Z-owned's resided in the above apartment owned by Kim Y-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong OO-dong OO-dong OO-dong and that the deceased Z-owned will pay KRW 100 million under the above lease deposit to the Kim Z-owned up to August 13, 2013, that the deceased Z will pay KRW 5003.13 billion.

However, the decedents prior to April 2010 only with the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 21, and 22

It is not sufficient to recognize that the custody of KRW 250 million has been made to the Corporation, and otherwise recognized.

Without any evidence, the Kim Z is over 00 years of age at the time of April 2010, with the birth of December 1900, and the special case

There is no circumstance to see that there is a separate profit activity, and at the time, the decedent is at the time

There is no special circumstance in which money is to be kept from the Kim Z due to considerable financial resources.

In full view of the facts above, the Kim Z left KRW 250 million to the decedent.

It is extremely difficult for the decedent to obtain the deposit. Accordingly, the decedent’s obligation to return the deposit to the Kim Z, 250 million won.

It is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had borne the source, and furthermore, even based on all the evidence incurred by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Claimant remitted the amount of KRW 150 million to this H, and that the amount of the deposited money against the Z was transferred by the

The repayment for the repayment obligation on behalf of the inheritee or for the Kim Z of the inheritee has been delivered.

In light of the above, it is difficult to see that the second-aid source was not remitted for the purpose of donation only with the facts acknowledged earlier, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit (the designated person is also donated money from the deceased as seen above, so the designated person is also a donation of money from the deceased, and therefore the amount equivalent to the

Even if the donation was returned, it shall not be deemed that there was no donation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.