Chuncheon District Court 2012Guhap360 ( October 15, 2013)

209 Heavy2148 (2010.09.08)

The presumption of gift is lawful because the spouse, etc. had sufficient financial capacity to give a donation.

It is difficult to conclude that the funds acquired on the basis of the loan are merely borrowed money because the loan was not entered in the original account book, and thus, it is reasonable to impose a tax on the gift on the grounds that the spouse, etc. had sufficient financial capability to donate the funds.

(Chuncheon)Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, 2013Nu364;

LAA

○ Head of tax office

2013.02.15

2014.04.30

2014.05.21

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of gift tax in the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as "attached Form") against the plaintiff on January 13, 2009 by the defendant shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for our court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance after deducting the following addition.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Of the acquisition funds of real estate Nos. 1, 30 million won, her mother KimB, 00 million won, her father, her father, and her father, her parent, not her parent’s lending from her parent, the 30 million won, donated by the parent, shall be deducted from the taxable value.

(2) Of the funds for acquiring real estate Nos. 4, the amount of KRW 000,000,000 out of the funds for acquiring real estate No. 4 is the money withdrawn from the borrowed name account in the name of KimB and LeeMoD he managed.

(3) On December 27, 2005, the repayment amount of the loan amount of KRW 00 billion is to be withdrawn and repaid from E, E, the Plaintiff’s borrowed account, and E, E, and E, the F, passbook.

(4) On February 18, 2008 and November 13, 2008, the Plaintiff borrowed 0 billion won in total from GG bank and used to repay the money when acquiring real estate Nos. 4 attached hereto. Among them, KRW 00,000,000 has been repaid to GH, so the said money shall be excluded from the amount deemed donation because the source of the said money is obvious.

B. Determination

(1) As to the first argument

The statements in Articles 7 and 8-1 through 30 alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff borrowed or received a donation from his parents aggregate of KRW 00,000,00,000 from his parents. Rather, according to the fact-finding with respect to the second bank J branch of the Korean court, the check was not issued in the name of the plaintiff at the leastCC, the father of the plaintiff from January 1, 2001 to March 31 of the same year. As of March 25, 2001, the balance of the above passbook is only KRW 00,000,000. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have borrowed or received the above money from his parents. Thus, other plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(3) As to the second argument

Only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 13-1, 2, and 3, it is insufficient to recognize that the above KRW 00,000,000 is the plaintiff's funds managed by using the borrowed account, and there is no other evidence.

(2) As to the third argument

The written evidence Nos. 25 and 26 alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff withdrawns KRW 00 million from the head of E and E and EF’s head of E and EF, and there is no other evidence. (No evidence exists to prove that the money is owned by the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was shipped back from the head of the above head of E and E and E.F.)

(3) On the fourth argument

The Plaintiff cannot be found to have repaid the above KRW 000,000,000 to Park H solely on the basis of the evidence No. 24, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise (A evidence No. 24). (A) It can be known that Park H’s amount decreased, the representative director of the K K industry, KK, and such fact alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was a transaction of monetary loan loan equivalent to the above amount between the Plaintiff and Park H).

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of grounds.