logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.04.11 2013구합25894
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 March 23, 2011, the Plaintiff donated KRW 4592 square meters prior to Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C (hereinafter “instant land”) and KRW 130 million in cash from the mother B.

On June 30, 201, the Plaintiff filed a report with the Defendant on the value of donated property of KRW 1,495,38,000 (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s appraisal value”) average of the appraisal value of the Korea Appraisal Board and the appraisal value of KRW 1,540,176,00 (the appraisal base date: March 14, 201; the date of preparation; March 14, 201); and of KRW 1,495,338,000 (the date of preparation: March 8, 201; March 9, 201) average of the appraisal value of the instant land as the value of donated property.

B. On the ground that “Plaintiff’s appraisal value is less than 90/100 of the officially assessed individual land price, and is less than 64.66%,” the Defendant requested a re-appraisal.

After that, on January 1, 2013, the Defendant issued a disposition to the Plaintiff on the value of KRW 1,701,920,00 (the base date for appraisal: October 14, 2011; the date for preparation; October 14, 2012) and the value of KRW 1,67,394,00 (the base date for appraisal: March 8, 201; the date for preparation: October 8, 2012; October 8, 2012) calculated by taking an arithmetic mean of KRW 1,689,657,00 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s appraisal value”) as the value of donated property, and imposed and notified the gift tax, KRW 76,455,720 (including additional tax) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

C. On April 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an appeal on April 12, 2013, and was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on July 18, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 12168, Jan. 1, 2014; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax Act”) and the Enforcement Decree thereof (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23040, Jul. 25, 2011; hereinafter the same).

arrow