208Guhap8918 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Gift Tax

00

The Director of the Pacific District Office

May 16, 2008

June 27, 2008

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

All the imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff listed in the attached list by the Defendant shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 23, 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application for the divorce conciliation against the husband, the Seoul Family Court 2006Ra9275, and the above parties entered into conciliation between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 27, 2006, with the Plaintiff on the grounds of the division of property, and the Plaintiff entered into the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government until July 31, 2006, and the division of property is paid KRW 800,000,000 to the Plaintiff by July 31, 2006.

B. The Plaintiff was transferred the ownership of the instant apartment as shown in the attached Form A and was transferred to the national bank account opened in the name of the Plaintiff to four times from April 18, 2007 to July 26, 2007.

C. When the Plaintiff acquired the instant apartment and cash from A according to the above conciliation, the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing gift tax as shown in the attached Form on the ground that the substance constitutes gift even if it takes the form of division of property.

[Reasons for Recognition] In without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 8 and Eul 1 each entry

2. Determination on the legality of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, as seen above, transferred or received the instant apartment and cash for the reason of the division of property according to the divorce from A, who is responsible for the failure of marriage as to divorce as to divorce A, and thus, the instant disposition that deemed a substantial donation is unlawful.

(b) Facts of recognition;

1) On May 23, 2006, upon the Plaintiff’s application for mediation of the above divorce and division of property against A, A was in possession of the instant apartment and Ecoos car, deposit, and cash one billion won. The Plaintiff was responsible for the instant apartment and Ecoos car, deposit, and cash amounting to KRW 195,00,000 with the maximum amount of the collateral security of the instant apartment, which was secured by the instant apartment. The Plaintiff demanded A to divide the entire property of A, including the instant apartment and the instant car and cash 80,000,000, including the instant apartment and the instant apartment and the instant car and cash 80,000,000, and the conciliation was concluded as above.

2) Even after divorce, A resided with the Plaintiff and his children in the instant apartment that was the Plaintiff’s residence by September 17, 2007 immediately after the commencement of the tax audit by the National Tax Service due to the information on the tax evasion against A.

3) The Defendant was informed that the Plaintiff was under disguised divorce to evade gift tax and confirmed that the Plaintiff and A were living together in the apartment of this case and that the mail of this case was being delivered to the apartment of this case. On August 7, 2007, at the time of direct investigation with respect to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was in the middle year of 2006 and was in the middle year of 2006, and was in the middle year of her temporary inspection for the reason of the problem of raising children.

4) On September 17, 2007, A knew that the Defendant’s tax investigation against the Plaintiff was conducted, and he transferred his address from the apartment of this case to the Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul.

5) Meanwhile, A opened and opened a bank account in the Plaintiff’s name prior to the establishment of divorce mediation, and opened an account for a national bank that he managed. However, prior to the establishment of divorce mediation, A deposited and released approximately KRW 2,814,00,000 in total from March 21, 2006 to April 14, 2007, prior to and after the establishment of divorce mediation, and used it as a passbook for one’s own business as of December 28, 2006, which was 569,000,000 won after divorce.

6) At the time of the divorce conciliation, A did not have any property otherwise registered in his/her name except the property transferred to the Plaintiff due to the division of property at the time of divorce conciliation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 2, Eul 3, and 4 (including abnormal numbers), each of the new or video images, Gap witness Gap's witness's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

[Dismissal Evidence] 1 to 8 of evidence A, part of witness A's testimony

D. Determination

In full view of the contents of the Plaintiff’s application for conciliation that can be known by the above facts, the reasons why the Plaintiff received cash from the Plaintiff after divorce, the living environment after divorce conciliation of the Plaintiff and A, resident registration transfer and rehabilitation management circumstances, and the details of the property under the name of A, etc., the Plaintiff is presumed to have received not the instant apartment or cash, but the donation of the form of division of property, under the pretext of division of property or consolation money according to divorce, since it is sufficiently presumed that the Plaintiff received the gift from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the property, such as the instant apartment, from A through division of property by divorce, is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Kim Jong-il

Judges Kim Jong-il

Judges Kim Jong-chul

List of Taxation

A person shall be appointed.