Jeju District Court 2013Guhap2185

The initial disposition that does not recognize the amount different from the amount of lease that the lessee submitted at the time of registration as the obligation is justifiable.

(1) The original disposition that does not recognize the amount of security deposit for the lease contract submitted by the Plaintiff as the obligation due to the difference from the contents of the lease contract submitted by the lessee at the time of the report of value-added tax and the registration of business registration, etc. of the lease contract.

Article 47 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Nu399 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

○ Kim

○ Head of tax office

Jeju District Court Decision 2013Guhap2185 Decided August 20, 2014

oly 2015.10

2015.07.01

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 defendant's disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 against the plaintiff on October 0, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the written judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

○ Change of “ October 0, 2012” in Chapter 4 to “ October 0, 2012.”

○ Change from Nos. 3 through 7 to “Evidence No. 15-1, 2, 3” to “Evidence No. 3 to 7, No. 15-1, 2, 3”

○ From 14th to 12th "A plaintiff," the third part of the 3rd part of the 12th part of the 14th part of the 14th part of the 2012.

30,000,000 won, 00,000 won, 76,000,000 won, and 76,000,000 won, respectively, to ○○○○ on October 0, 2012, and ○○ on October 16, 2012, and withdrawn twenty copies of a cashier’s check on October 30, 2012, even though it is recognized that the above money was deposited from each account of ○○○, Kim○○, and Lee○○, and the above money was actually deposited to ○○○ on the day of deposit, and it was not clear whether the above cashier’s checks was actually paid to ○○○ on the day of deposit, and it was changed to ○○○, Kim○, ○, and ○○, even after the Plaintiff returned the deposit.”

1) It seems that there is a clerical error in KRW 00,000,000.

○ Change of No. 16 and No. 17 of the 3rd page to 'Mag○'.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.