Seoul Administrative Court 2012Guhap39025 (27 September 2013)

It can not be viewed as a donation because it constitutes repayment of indemnity claim due to subrogation.

(1) The Plaintiff and the Plaintiff can find out the fact that the amount was appropriated for the above sales amount on behalf of the obligor to the transferee of the loan claim. According to the agreement or delegation with the Plaintiff, the said amount is deemed to be a repayment of the claim for indemnity due to subrogation, but the assertion that the said amount was repaid as a sales amount is without merit.

2013Nu29041 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

- Appellants

KimA

XX Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2012Guhap39025 decided September 27, 2013

April 23, 2014

July 23, 2014

1. The plaintiff and the defendant all appeals are dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax on April 1, 2012 (=OOO on September 30, 2009 + OOOO on November 2, 2009) is revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

A. Plaintiff: The part of the judgment of the first instance against the Plaintiff is revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax OO on April 1, 2012 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part is dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court’s judgment is as follows: (a) the evidence No. 10 No. 10, which is 7 below the 7th day, means that the evidence No. 10 and evidence No. 15-1 and No. 15-2 are raised by the court of first instance; and (b) therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.