Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap8199 ( December 14, 2012)

It is reasonable to deem that there was an intention to settle ex post facto in paying building acquisition funds.

Considering the fact that the Tax Tribunal has an intention to settle after the payment of the acquisition fund of a building when considering the fact that the acquisition fund of a building was deducted from the purchase price of a motor vehicle and the sale price of an apartment, it is reasonable to deem that the presumption of donation should be reversed, and it cannot be deemed that the loan was made by a person with a special relationship at a rate lower than

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Nu155 Revocation of imposition of gift tax

Gangwon A

Head of the tax office;

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap8199 decided December 14, 2012

October 15, 2013

November 15, 2013

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On January 4, 2011, the Defendant revoked the imposition of an OOO (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. A cited part;

The reasoning for the statement concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition to the following 2.3. Thus, this case is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

The following parts shall be added between the five pages 7 and 8 of the judgment of the first instance.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that even if the issue amount is considered as a monetary loan for consumption, the gift tax should be assessed on the basis that economic benefits equivalent to the difference between the reasonable interest rate (9%) determined and publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service and the amount equivalent to the actual paid interest amount are generated, and that the disposition in this case is lawful within the scope of the above donation.

Article 41-4 (1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that in case where a related party obtains a loan of money of more than OOOO won without compensation or at an interest rate lower than the appropriate interest rate, any of the following amounts shall be deemed to be the value of donated property of the person who has obtained the loan of the money:

Therefore, in order to apply the above provision in this case, the plaintiff should have received a loan from the HongB to the interest rate lower than the appropriate interest rate. As seen earlier, while the plaintiff took out a loan from the HongB to the HongB, the plaintiff also lent the above loan amount to the HongB before and after the above loan, and the money transaction between the couple should be comprehensively determined not by individual transaction but by overall transaction. In light of the fact that the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff has received a loan from the HongB free of charge or at a rate lower than the appropriate interest rate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.