It is reasonable to regard the acquisition of the rental deposit from the transaction price of the housing as taking over the rental deposit.

In the case of a lessee, it is reasonable to view that only the remainder after deducting a lease deposit from the transaction price of the house was paid to the seller is a common transaction practice, and that only the remainder after taking over the lease deposit from the transaction price of the house of this case and deducting it was paid to the former

2013Guhap1850 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

NewA

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

August 22, 2013

October 24, 2013

1. On February 1, 2012, the part of the disposition imposed by the Defendant on the Plaintiff on the imposition of the gift tax OO(including additional OOO) exceeds OOO(including additional OOOO) shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 50% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of gift tax by the Defendant on February 1, 2012 on the Plaintiff is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

“A. On February 11, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to OOOdong 1, 2009, 401 reinforced concrete structure 100.33m2 (hereinafter “the instant house”) on 144-14th floor, and the transaction value of the instant house on the copy of the register is OOOB. B. The Defendant, while conducting an investigation of capital gains tax on the GuB, the mother of the Plaintiff, determined that the Plaintiff acquired the instant house by receiving the funds for acquiring the instant house from OOCC, which was the transaction value on the copy of the register of the instant house, and determined and notified the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012 as the donated property, on March 13, 2009.

C. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on August 22, 2012, but was dismissed on December 26, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In December 31, 2007, the GuB acquired the instant house and sold it to KimD on December 31, 2007, but at the request of KimD, the sale price under the contract when the ownership transfer registration was made, and KimD demanded the cancellation of the sales contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff. In other words, the transaction price of the instant house is an OOE, and the amount of the instant house is the value of the leased deposit and the obligation to return the lease deposit related to the instant house was acquired by the plaintiff, so it should be deducted, and the disposition of this case is unlawful because it does not have any taxable income unless the gift deduction is excluded from the OO.

B. Determination

1) Transaction price of the instant housing

In addition to the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, ① the Plaintiff’s mother purchased the instant house from thisGG, but sold it to NohH in an unregistered state, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to DaD after cancelling the contract at the request of NohHH’s termination and re-sale the instant house to DoD. ② However, KimD also demanded termination of the contract, ② the former BB also demanded termination of the contract with DaD, terminated the contract with DaD, and sold the instant house to Y, which is the Plaintiff’s money, and thereafter, the Plaintiff became the ownership transfer registration;

See Table 3

③ HH reported the transfer value as OOO or acquisition value OOO in the return of transfer income tax for 2007. ④ On the other hand, in relation to the instant housing, the publicly announced price of multi-family housing by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on January 1, 2007 is OO won, and the publicly announced price of multi-family housing by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs on January 1, 2009 is OO.

In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view the purchase price of the housing of this case as the OO members, who are transaction values on the register.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the real estate sales contract (Evidence A) that the GuB sold the instant housing to KimD on November 19, 2007 was not a real estate intermediary, and there is no mentioning about the obligation to return the lease deposit to the Y, which the Plaintiff claims that the Plaintiff succeeded to, and there is no objective evidence, such as financial data, etc. that the former BB received from KimD, and the purchase price claimed by the Plaintiff is difficult to believe that it falls short of the publicly notified price of the instant housing, and there is no other evidence to recognize the transaction price of the instant housing as the OE.

2) Existence of lease deposit obligation

A) If the statement in Gap evidence No. 2 added the purport of the entire argument, it can be acknowledged that the lease contract was concluded on February 13, 2006 to lease the housing of this case (113.83 square meters, three rooms, kitchens, toilets, and living rooms) from thisG from thisG for the period from February 13, 2006 to February 26, 2008, with the term of OOO, from February 27, 2006 to the fixed date of February 10, 2006, and completed the move-in report after receiving the fixed date of March 10, 2006; ② On the other hand, the sulfurE continued to maintain the housing of this case as of October 31, 2012 (No. 6 is the same as Eul evidence No. 2; however, the name of the plaintiff is the same as Eul evidence No. 6, and the name of the plaintiff No. 2 after receipt of the original copy of the move-in report. 2.

B. On June 1, 2006, YE entered into a lease contract before the purchase of the instant housing by the former B, but Y appears to have been residing as a lessee in the instant housing from February 13, 2006 to February 13, 2006. In other words, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, as a common transaction practice, purchased the instant housing by taking over the lease deposit from the transaction value of the instant housing and paying the remainder to the former owner only after deducting the lease deposit from the lease deposit and deducting the lease deposit from the transaction value of the instant housing. As long as YE is acknowledged as a fact, it is reasonable to view that the donation amount donated by the HE to purchase the instant housing by the Plaintiff is the transaction value of the instant housing from the OOOE minus after deducting the lease deposit from the lease deposit.

B) We examine whether there are OOO members of the obligation to return leased deposits to HanF.

"F." On May 14, 2010, when the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 4 was added, HanF entered into a lease contract with the plaintiff on May 14, 2010 that the above OF No. 14-1 401 square meters of land category, 236.40 square meters of multi-household 45.32 square meters of multi-household 48 square meters of multi-unit 402 square meters of multi-unit 40, 401 (402) of multi-unit 40 square meters of multi-unit 40, 300 square meters of multi-unit 40, 2008, 300 square meters of multi-unit 4, 400 square meters of multi-unit 12, 40,000 square meters of multi-unit 4, and there is no evidence that the above OF 14,010 square-unit 24,000.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified only for the obligation to return the deposit to OOOE.

3) If the personal deductions for the refund of the lease deposit against Yellow E are deducted from the OOwon, which is the transaction value of the instant housing, the tax base is the OOwon, and the legitimate tax amount is the OOwon (including additional OOO directors) as follows.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.