Cho High Court Decision 2009J3515 (Law No. 1030, 2010)

the gift in lieu of payment that the gift did not have a claim that could have been acquired by the

In addition to the settlement statement, the objective evidence to support the existence of the debt was not submitted, and it was not bound to the fact-finding in related civil cases, and it cannot be said that there was a claim that can be acquired due to payment in kind, and it constitutes the donation.

2010Guhap12454 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

GangwonAA

Head of Si Tax Office

May 2, 2013

June 13, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000,000 and KRW 0000 on May 1, 2009 against the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Basic facts and circumstances of dispositions;

A. On February 14, 2003, JeongB entered into a joint agreement with the CC Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "CC Development") to sell to 000, and 000,000 or 58, the former 000, and 000 or 58, during the period of the purchase of static ownership, to build and sell a main complex building on the above ground (hereinafter referred to as "the building in this case"). The CC Development agreed to pay 00,000 won on the date of the contract, and the first intermediate payment of 00 won on the date of the contract, and the second intermediate payment of 00 won on the second intermediate payment until February 28, 2003, and to pay 00 won within three months from the date of the purchase, and to pay 90% of the remainder on the basis of the market interest rate when the second intermediate payment and remainder are delayed, and to assess the remainder amount corresponding to 90% of the building in this case.

B.CC Development agreed on February 24, 2005 to pay the above down payment and the first, the second and the second intermediate payment and the remainder interest, and to settle the balance of the payment up to the date of the payment to the dueB with the principal KRW 000 and interest KRW 000,000.

C. After the above settlement agreement,CC was around March 2007, provided 00 and 000 and 000 of the building in this case as a settlement for settlement, and Jung had completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 27, 2007 and June 14, 2007 with respect to the above 000 and 000 for each trade for the plaintiff who was in a de facto marital relationship without going through his name with respect to the above real estate.

D. On May 1, 2009, the Defendant imposed the gift tax of KRW 236,738,850 on the Plaintiff with respect to the above KRW 00,00,000, and KRW 236,738, and KRW 1204 on the Plaintiff, and the Defendant imposed KRW 82,979, and KRW 340 on the above KRW 1204.

[The facts under which there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, the entries (including household numbers) in Gap 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 1, 3, 4, and 5, and the whole purport of the pleading.

2. Related statutes;

Paper in the Appendix

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. As to the first disposition of this case

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff loaned KRW 000,00,00 from January 5, 1991 to 2006, and loaned KRW 000,000 from financial institutions from around 1990 to 2007, and the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 000,000 among them. To settle the lending relationship, the Plaintiff prepared a settlement statement on July 11, 1998, which determined the principal and interest of KRW 200,000 on the loan principal and interest of KRW 00,00,000 on the loan principal and interest of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000, and 00,000,000,000,000,000, and 0,000,00,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

(2) Determination

The issue of whether the property was donated is a matter of principle by the tax authorities that prove that it was legitimate for taxation requirements. However, if the donee does not have any occupation or income, it is reasonable to determine the amount of the gift as the gift unless it proves that the donee would obtain only the above 00 and 000, and if the plaintiff would be at the time of acquiring the above 00 and 000, it is recognized that the income from the operation of the gas station would be the situation where the financial institutions would be responsible for the interest of the loan. The plaintiff would not dispute the above 00 and 000, and the plaintiff would not be able to obtain the purchase price corresponding to the above 00, 100, 200, 100, 200, 000, 200, 000, 00,000, 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000.

B. As to the second disposition of this case

The plaintiff and the above 004 asserted that the above 004 was not repaid to CC development, but the plaintiff was directly sold from CC development and completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 23, 2004, and that the above 2 disposition was erroneous by mistake of facts. In light of the following, there is no objective data that the plaintiff paid the sales price to CC development at the time of the tax investigation, and there is no objective data that the 1204 evidence was provided to CC development as the substitute payment, and the above 1204 evidence was insufficient to find facts prior to the fact that CC development was directly transferred to the plaintiff in CC development without dueB, and that the plaintiff was directly sold the above real estate from CC development. Therefore, the argument that the plaintiff was directly sold the above real estate is groundless.

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is all dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.