2012 Jeon 5175 (27 March 2013)

Since the money withdrawn from the parent's account was deposited to the plaintiff through the parent's account, it constitutes a donation to the plaintiff by the parent's parent.

Since the money withdrawn from the parent-child's account was deposited into the account of the farm operated by the Gu, and was deposited into the friendship through the employee and deposited to the plaintiff again, the disposition imposing gift tax by deeming that the money withdrawn from the parent-child's account was acquired by the plaintiff is legitimate.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap10629 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA

CC director of the tax office

February 12, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 61,448,600 against the Plaintiff on November 1, 2012 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Defendant’s investigation result on the Plaintiff’s gift tax conducted from January 9, 2012 to February 27, 2012;

On October 10, 2008, the Plaintiff’s mother, MaBB (Death on April 14, 2010, hereinafter “the deceased”).

(3) The Plaintiff received KRW 143,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and on November 1, 2012, 2008:

The gift tax imposed KRW 61,448,600 (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

B. On November 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 20, 2012, and tax.

The Tribunal on March 27, 2013 (hereinafter “The Tribunal”) was set aside from the deceased’s account on October 10, 2008, and modern DDR farms.

In accordance with the results of the re-audit, the "re-audit" decision was made on 000 won which was deposited into the account of the farming cooperative corporation, and the defendant notified the plaintiff on May 23, 2013 of the re-audit result that "no change is made."

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff did not receive a donation from the deceased, so the disposition of this case is unlawful.

of this chapter.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) The Plaintiff’s mother’s name MaBB (the Plaintiff’s mother was deceased on April 14, 2010, hereinafter “the deceased”).

After the KK Bank's deposit account was terminated on October 10, 2008, KRW 100,000,000, which was deposited from the relevant account, was issued as one million check (the check number: 23************************************; hereinafter referred to as "the check in this case") and the account (the representative EE; hereinafter referred to as "DD farm farm") of the HyundaiDD farm Association Co., Ltd. (N45*-01-***********; hereinafter referred to as "the check in this case").

2) On October 13, 2008, three days after the date of the deposit, KRW 00,000, which is the same amount as the instant money, was withdrawn from the said DNA farm account. On the same day, the representative director of the E farm of the said DNA farm, who received KRW 43*-02-****** on October 14, 2008, was fully deposited on the E account (NNA 47*8-52-**********) on the same day.

3) Meanwhile, on October 10, 2008, 142 won was deposited at the time of the representative’s temporary deposit at the ledger of the accounts of the DNA farm, and on October 16, 2008, 00 won was deposited at the temporary deposit of the representative during the period from October 14 to October 16, 2008.

3) Since October 14, 2008, the financial details between the Plaintiff and the E-E shall be as follows:

same as the entry.

Deposit Shares

Account Number

Date of Transaction

Amount of withdrawal

Amount of reserve

Details of transactions

DDken farm

45*-01-****

November 11, 2008

30,000,000

Transfer to the Plaintiff

E

47***8-52-****

9.4

20,000,000

Plaintiff Transfer

E

47***8-52-****

9.4

30,000,000

Plaintiff Transfer

DDken farm

455-01-197635

April 27, 2009

10,000,000

Transfer to the Plaintiff

E

47***8-52-****

July 10, 2009

30,000,000

Transfer to the Plaintiff

E

47***8-52-****

November 10, 2009

2,616,900

Plaintiff Transfer

E

47***8-52-****

May 6, 2010

50,000,000

Transfer to the Plaintiff

E

47***8-52-****

May 6, 2010

50,000,000

Transfer to the Plaintiff

Consolidateds

170,000,000

52,616,900

4) Of the instant check, as to KRW 100,00,00 (the check number: 26*******6***********]] the separate check slip exists, and ' children KimW’ at the bottom of the previous check. At the time of 2008, EarL, who worked at the NN of the new bank, stated in the letter of answer that the Plaintiff was carrying out the work, such as deposit withdrawal and the occurrence of check, while carrying out the work, was accompanied by the Plaintiff presumed to be the infants of the deceased and stated in the letter of answer as 'W' at the bottom of the previous check-related 100,000,000,000, which was 'W' at the bottom of the previous check-related 100,000,000,000, which was stated as follows.

5) In the course of the investigation, EE is the first-middle school building with the Plaintiff, and at the time of October 10, 2008, it was not accurately aware of the cause of deposit and use of KRW 000,000 deposited from the Plaintiff to the DNA farm, but if it was deposited into the corporation from time to time due to repeated loan and payment of KRW 6-70,000,000 at that time, it will be the loan, and the usage of the loan is the real estate acquisition fund.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, entry Eul 2 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In full view of the fact that the deceased terminated the account on October 10, 2008 and the plaintiff was accompanied at the time of withdrawing the money, that the money of this case from the deceased's account was already deposited to E that had already been traded several times prior to the plaintiff and E's early interest through a DNA farm and EE's employee account, and that this case's money was deposited into E and Ddken farm after deposit after this case's money was deposited into the plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff was transferred to E again after the plaintiff acquired the money of this case from the deceased on October 10, 2008 and lent it to E.

2) As above, inasmuch as the Plaintiff should be deemed to have acquired the money withdrawn from the parent-child’s account, and there are special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and acquisition of the Plaintiff’s corresponding money for the purpose other than donation, the need to prove this is deemed to exist to the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone lacks to prove that the instant money was not donated from the deceased, and there is no other evidence to prove this otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.