Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap52098 (Law No. 19, 2015)

Tax Tribunal 2013Seoul 3845 ( October 28, 2014)

The right to purchase the land of this case received in excess of the funding ratio is justified in this disposition by donation.

If the plaintiff received a share of profits equivalent to the difference in the share ratio of purchase fund from his spouse, it is reasonable to regard it as a donation, and the substance of the benefit is the right to purchase the land

Articles 2(3) and (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu5671 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Gift Tax

EO

Head of the District Tax Office

on 19, 2015

on October 06, 2016

on October 2016 20

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 (including penalty tax) made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is as follows, except for the dismissal of the following matters among the judgments of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 7 side 3 parallel 40.4 " 40.04".

○ At the end of Section 7, 4), the following shall be added:

The grounds for the instant disposition are that the Plaintiff was donated the shares of sale by the OO in accordance with the second succession contract to rights and obligations.

○ 8 pages 8, "OO" shall be considered as "O".

○ 9, 5, and 6 degrees “at least before the Plaintiff’s written investigation was made even thereafter,” and “the Plaintiff continued to be “the global income for the year 2007 and the year 2008.”

○ 10 - 10 - 1 - "(3)" shall be described as "(4)".

○ 14. The following shall be added to the 5th page below:

㉶ 원고는 이 사건 공유 경정등기가 합유등기에 의하여 유효하게 경정되지 않는다고 가정하더라도 원고의 취득자금 비율을 초과하는 지분 부분은 명의신탁으로 봄이 타당하다고 주장하나, 앞서 본 사정들에 비추어 원고가 제출하는 증거들에 의하더라도 위와 같은 명의신탁 사실을 인정하기는 부족하다.

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.