Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-61239 ( August 18, 2016)

Where money is deposited in the account in the name of a donee, it may be deemed that a donation is received, except in extenuating circumstances.

As long as the deposited account in the name of a donor is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring any special circumstance, such as the withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit in the name of a taxpayer, made for purposes other than donation, there is a need to prove such

Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Estimated donation of funds for acquiring property

2016Nu6326 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

- Appellants

○○

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap61239 Decided August 18, 2016

November 15, 2016

December 06, 2016

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed;

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 77,447,223, and KRW 27,028,294 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2013 as to the donated portion of the year 2009-201, respectively, shall be revoked on April 7, 2014 against the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of KRW 70,795,233, and KRW 27,028,294, imposed on the plaintiff on December 1, 2013 with respect to the gift for the year 2009-201.

B. Defendant

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 4

○ From the sixth side of the judgment of the first instance to the end of the third.

○ At the bottom of the 7th judgment of the first instance court, conduct 5 to 6, the following addition:

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff, unless it is revealed that the amount deposited (No. 2) was the Plaintiff’s money, with the money deposited from D.

○ From the 7th judgment of the first instance court to the 3rd to the 8th one.

Since FF was recognized to have deposited ○○ Bank Account (1002-00-0000) through ○○○ Bank Account (356-000-000-0000) in the name of the Plaintiff, it cannot be said that F did not have any financial ability to make a donation to F, and it is reasonable to presume that the deposited money was donated to the Plaintiff as long as F purchased the Plaintiff’s shares and repaid the loan with the deposited money. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

○ At the bottom of the 8th judgment of the first instance court, Section 2, ".........." add the following:

Even if GG does not have any capacity to repay to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that GG deposited KRW 140,000,000 in total with the Plaintiff’s ○○ Securities and the ○ bank account under the Plaintiff’s name, and as long as it was used in purchasing the Plaintiff’s shares, the deposited money was donated to the Plaintiff, unless it is revealed that

In addition, even if deposited money is not GG’s money, the Plaintiff’s donation was made to the Plaintiff and the amount of legitimate tax increased, so the instant disposition within the scope of such donation cannot be deemed unlawful (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Du3823, Jun. 15, 2006; 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997).

○ Removal from the 9th page of the first instance judgment to the 12th page of the 9th instance judgment.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and since the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant is unfair with its conclusion different, it shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim of this case shall