District Court-2014-Gu Partnership-9306 ( May 10, 2016)

Since the plaintiff did not disclose the specific and objective purpose of use for the account withdrawal amount, the initial disposition that was assessed on the basis of the presumption of donation is legitimate.

It is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s prior donation property value based on the instant disposition was reasonably calculated through objective evidence, and that the Defendant’s use of part of the gift property due to the inheritee’s living expenses or medical expenses does not go beyond the scope of the duty of support normally assumed as a family community.

Article 89-1 of the Income Tax Act: Scope of “one house for one household”

Seoul High Court 2016Nu47569

le00 foreign1

00. Head of tax office

August 23, 2016

September 27, 2016

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of KRW 1,147,250,519 and inheritance tax of KRW 484,427,474 against Plaintiff 00 and gift tax of KRW 404,41,530 shall be revoked on December 11, 2012 and all disposition of imposition of KRW 404,41,530 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part 4 of the decision of the court of first instance is excluded from Part 8 of the decision of the court of first instance, and the following additional contents are added (Therefore, even if the place of use is confirmed, the equivalent of the amount shall not be excluded from the taxable object).

In the first instance court's decision, "amount deposited into the account of the plaintiff" from 4th to 9th court's decision, "amount deposited into the account of the plaintiff", and "amount revealed that the withdrawal of the plaintiff Kim 00 has been revealed as a result of payment of some of the checks withdrawn by the plaintiff Kim 00".

Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court, No. 14, the following:

(The date of deposit alleged by the plaintiff is more than a month different from the date of donation, and the amount claimed is not similar to the amount claimed by the plaintiff) and, under the fourth decision of the first instance, the first instance court is equivalent to the amount claimed by the plaintiff, the second to fifth to fifth.

Each statement of Gap 4 through 7, 9 through 13, and 18 through 54 (including branch numbers, if any) is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiffs received donations from the inheritee for the purpose of paying the deceased's living expenses, etc. or spent them for the above purpose as giftable property, etc.

there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of grounds.