Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap4494 ( October 13, 2012)

In special circumstances, deposit funds shall not be deemed a donation in advance.

Inasmuch as the deposit is found to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of the taxpayer, the deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer; however, considering that some of the funds are consistent with the amount withdrawn and deposited to the unit, the date and time of withdrawal and deposited are the same, and account transfer should not be deemed to have been made in advance due to the nature of the fund account, etc.

Article 32 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2012Nu24803 Revocation of imposition of gift tax

Appellant and Appellant

AA

- Appellants

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap4494 decided July 13, 2012

July 23, 2013

September 6, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax on August 1, 201 by OOOO on the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

On August 1, 2011, the part of the imposition of the gift tax imposed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff is revoked.

B. Defendant

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

1. Quotation of judgments of the first instance;

The court's reasoning concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal as stated in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A part concerning addition or height;

In the third chapter of the judgment of the first instance court, "in the account" shall be added to the amount equivalent to loans.

In addition, the first instance court's 4th to 10th court's 7th court's decision is as follows.

In this case, the court's order to submit financial transaction information to the bank BB bank, and when CCC opens the account in the name of the plaintiff, it is accompanied by a power of delegation in the name of the plaintiff stating that "the plaintiff delegates the plaintiff to CCC all acts on the application and receipt of moving expenses (including the opening of passbook prior to the passbook) to the Doz redevelopment area in gold 11, and the above power of delegation is stated that the plaintiff was present in the Hong Kong Consular Group in the Hong Kong, Hong Kong, and signed his delegation, and that the plaintiff was certified by the above consular division. According to the above private theory of recognition, the plaintiff's opening and moving expenses of the account in this case were conducted by the agent under the delegation of the plaintiff, the title holder of the deposit title or the borrower, and there is sufficient evidence to recognize that CCC and the Doz bank agreed with the plaintiff's intent to own the above loan to vest in CCC or EE, not the plaintiff, the title holder of the account in this case, and therefore, it is reasonable to recognize that the plaintiff's intent to deposit the loan in the account in this case.

In addition, the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second to fifth 6th.

On the same day, the EE’s trust account (36410836-0003) established at the first place of FF, and some testimony of CCC, as well as the court’s testimony on July 3, 2003, the following facts are considered comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments as a result of the order to submit financial transaction information on the FF point of the FF branch of the court, and i.e., CC withdrawn a check number OO, and OOO of the amount from the account of this case on July 2, 2003. In light of the fact that the check of this case was presented to GG bank on July 3, 2003, 2000 won was deposited with the trust account of EE (36410836-003) established at the first place of FF corporation, 200 won was deposited with the Plaintiff on the same date, and 200 won was not deposited with the account of the Plaintiff’s account transfer.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate as it is consistent with this conclusion, all appeals filed by the plaintiff and the unfolding court are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.