The instant money is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiffs by the owner, KimA.

As long as the funds of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority are revealed to have been deposited in a bank account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposits shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there are special circumstances, such as that deposits in the taxpayer’s name were made for other purpose than donation, the burden

2014Guhap51983 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

D KimD et al.

Head of Central Tax Office

June 30, 2015

July 21, 2015

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

Each disposition taken by the Defendant against Plaintiff KimD on August 1, 2012 (referred to as “the amount of gift made on April 21, 2008), ○○○○○ (the amount of gift made on April 21, 2008), ○○○○○ (the amount of gift made on July 31, 2008) (the amount of gift made on April 21, 2008), and ○○○○○○ (the amount of gift made on April 21, 2008) and ○○○○ (the amount of gift made on July 31, 2008, and the amount of “○○○○” written on the complaint made on July 31, 2008) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From 2000 to 2010, KimA was an executive officer of HH Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HH Construction”), and the Plaintiffs are children of KimA.

B. In the process of acquiring a large number of real estate between 2002 and 2003 and completing the registration of ownership transfer under the above service period, KimA purchased national housing bonds under Article 68(1) of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13378, Jun. 22, 2015). After maturity of the above national housing bonds, repayment of the pertinent credit amount has arrived, on April 21, 2008, 56,140,80 out of the above repayment amount was deposited under the name of KimD (Account Number: 0-10, 0-10, 0-0, 0-10-O, 0-10, 0-10-, 0-10-4, 000, 56,140, 380 won in each of the above deposit accounts in the name of the plaintiffs Kim Bank under the name of the plaintiffs Kim Bank under the name of the plaintiffs (OO-10-10-4, 30-10-10-6).

C. On August 1, 2012, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiffs were donated the instant money by KimA as a result of the tax investigation with respect to the Plaintiffs, and imposed and notified the Plaintiff KimD of the gift tax ○○○○○○○ (the donations made on April 21, 2008) and the gift tax ○○○○○ (the donations made on July 31, 2008) (the donations made on July 31, 2008) and the gift tax ○○○○ (the donations made on April 21, 2008) and ○○○ (the donations made on July 31, 2008) respectively (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant dispositions”).

D. The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but all of the claims were dismissed on December 18, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 19 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Each deposit account in the name of the plaintiffs is a borrowed-name account opened in the name of the plaintiffs, who are their children, for the purpose of managing financial assets, such as wage and salary income received by KimA while in office in the non-party company. The amount of this case was deposited in each of the above deposits for the above purpose and was withdrawn and consumed by KimA. Therefore, since KimA cannot be deemed to have donated the amount of this case to the plaintiffs, each of the dispositions of this case on different premise is unlawful.

B. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the funds of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority are revealed to have been deposited in a bank account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposits are presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as that deposits, etc. in the taxpayer’s name were made for other purpose than gift, the burden of proof for such deposit has the duty payer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov

In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the amount of this case, which is part of the maturity repayment of national housing bonds purchased by public health units and KimA, was deposited in each deposit account in the names of the plaintiffs who are their children, is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiffs. Thus, the amount of this case is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the following circumstances, which can be known by the entire purport of entry and pleading in No. 4-1 through No. 6, i.e., ① around March 11, 2008, 00 Dong-dong 130m2 and 0-5 m25m25m2, which were owned by the plaintiffs, were insufficient to recognize each of the above plaintiffs' assertion that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs of this case had not been donated to each of the above plaintiffs on the ground that there was a lack of evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiffs of this case had been donated to the plaintiffs on March 11, 2008.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.