logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2015.12.18 2015구합8428
증여세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 4, 2002, the Plaintiff’s ASEAN used the instant house to obtain a successful bid in KRW 714,239,000 from the auction procedure (Seoul District Court D) of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Housing Co. (hereinafter “instant Housing”), which was owned by the Plaintiff, for the purpose of raising the successful bid price, and accordingly, the Plaintiff used the loan and the bonds from the financial institution to raise the successful bid price, and accordingly, registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant house.

After September 19, 2007, B transferred the instant house to E in KRW 1,800,000.

B. On November 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of tracking the arrears on and around 2009 without reporting the transfer income tax. In the process, B deposited KRW 300,000,000 out of the said transfer price of KRW 1,80,000,000 in the F’s account (hereinafter “instant account”), and it was revealed that B used KRW 450,000,000 in the repayment of the secured debt for the registration of the establishment of neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name under the title of the instant house.

Accordingly, from September 4, 2013 to October 2013, the Defendant conducted an investigation related to gift tax against the Plaintiff, and deemed that the Plaintiff donated KRW 750,000,000 from B, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 296,010,000 on May 12, 2014.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 18, 2014. On June 5, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision that “The amount deemed to have been directly used by B after re-investigation is deducted from the taxable value of donated property, on the grounds that the amount of KRW 450,00,000, which was confirmed to have been paid by B to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff’s mortgagee was used for the acquisition of the instant house and repayment of the loan, etc.”

Afterward, the Defendant deemed that B used to acquire the instant house as the amount for KRW 450,000,000, and that B donated the remainder of KRW 300,000 to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2015.

arrow