The burden of proving the existence of the gift facts

Even if the money used by the plaintiff was verified by the letter, etc. of the check, it cannot be deemed that there was a gift if there is a mere reason to do so.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 153,09,568 on June 1, 2005 against the Plaintiff on the gift tax of KRW 153,09,568, the gift tax of KRW 48,287,489, the gift tax of KRW 2001, and the gift tax of KRW 81,282,129 on the gift tax of KRW 202 shall be revoked.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 4, 1995, 1995, ○○○○○○○○-dong 220-3, 464.8 square meters, 220-18, 116.9 square meters, and three-story houses above the above land (hereinafter referred to as “the above land and housing”) were registered on October 30, 1993 with regard to the debtor ○○○ Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Chemical”), ○○ Life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Life Co., Ltd.”), 450 million won with maximum debt amount (30 million won with debt amount), the debtor ○○○ Logistics Co.,,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”) and the maximum debt amount, 350 million won with respect to the registration of the establishment of a mortgage.

B. On September 3, 1996, ○○○ offered the instant real estate as security, and was loaned KRW 220 million from ○○ Life (38 million in maximum amount of bonds).

C. On March 31, 200, 000, ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Bank offered the instant real property as collateral and obtained a loan of 500 million won (650 million won in maximum amount of claims). On March 31, 2000, on the instant real property, the registration of establishment was completed prior to the registration of creation of a mortgage with the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the ○○ Bank Co., Ltd., and the maximum debt amount of KRW 390 million (30 million in maximum debt amount).

D. On March 31, 200, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 450 million out of the above 500 million loaned by the above ○○○○○○○, a loan by one’s own name, and repaid KRW 50 million in each check, and repaid KRW 594,52,780 and KRW 200,477,220 in total with the above ○○ Chemical and ○○○○○ Logistics’s obligations with respect to ○○ Life, and KRW 200,477,220 in each check used to pay the above amount. The Plaintiff’s objection was made on the check used to pay the above amount.

E. In addition, on December 3, 2001, the establishment registration of a mortgage on the instant real estate was completed with respect to the Plaintiff, the mortgagee, the ○○ Bank, the maximum debt amount of KRW 156 million (the debt amount of KRW 120 million), and the said loan of KRW 120 million was deposited into the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name.

F. On May 2, 2002, ○○○○ sold the instant real estate to ○○○○○ for the purchase price of KRW 1.43 billion, and received the balance of KRW 340 million on June 3, 2002 as a check. On the same day, the said check was presented for payment at ○○○○○○○○○○ branch, and was exchanged for 17 checks, and the check presented for payment was issued, and there was an objection by the Plaintiff.

G. Meanwhile, the above debts of KRW 920 million, which borrowed the instant real estate as security, were part of the sales price, and all of the above ○○○○ was succeeded, and the ○○○○○ fully repaid the above debts on June 29, 2002.

H. The Defendant determined that on June 1, 2005, the Plaintiff was donated KRW 1,070,000,000,000 among the loans on March 31, 200, KRW 1200,000,000 from the loans on December 3, 2001, and KRW 340,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, excluding KRW 140,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, 237,300,000,000,00 won, 201,20828,289.

I. On January 17, 2006, the Defendant revised the gift tax of 200 to KRW 153,09,568 on June 1, 2005 on the basis of the remaining amount after reduction and correction (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”) by reducing the gift tax of 2000 on June 1, 2005, on the basis of the tax base of KRW 200,477,220, and only KRW 594,522,780, which was used to repay the debt to ○○○○○○○’s ○○ Life, except for KRW 200,477,220, which was used to repay the debt to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the disposition of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2 through 5 evidence 1 to 3, Eul 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case is unlawful for the following reasons.

(1) The portion of gift tax on 2000

The sum of loans for ○○ Chemical and ○○ Logistics amounting to KRW 50 million is KRW 50,000,000,000,000 for ○○○○○○ in order to lend business funds to ○○○○, an infant with a smaller amount of KRW 00,00,000, for the purpose of lending business funds, ○○○○○○○ is a debt of ○○○○○○, which only lent only the name of the above company with a representative director, provided and borrowed the instant real estate as security, and the Plaintiff performed the debt of KRW 594,522,780 out of the loans on March 31, 200, on behalf of the aged ○○○○, and there was

(2) The portion of gift tax on 2001

On December 3, 2001, the Plaintiff only lent the name of a lending of KRW 120 million to the ○○○○○ upon the ○○○○○○’s request. Since then, the Plaintiff only lent the above loan deposited in the Plaintiff’s deposit account to the ○○○○○○○○ and the Defendant’s repayment of the above loan to the ○○○○○○○ and the ○○○○○○○○○, on behalf of the Plaintiff, did not receive the said money

(3) The portion of gift tax on 2002

In accordance with the direction of ○○○○○○, the Plaintiff used 90 million won out of the balance of 340 million won on June 3, 2002 for the repayment of its debt to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and exchanged 170 million won checks for the remainder of 250 million won. The Plaintiff used the said money for the repayment of debt to the said ○○○○○○○○○○○, and only used the said money for the repayment of debt to the said ○○○○○○○○○, and did not make any donation to the said money.

B. Determination

(1) The portion of gift tax on 2000

The Plaintiff’s ○○○○○-2’s loan of KRW 1,52,78 on the above ○○○○-5’s loan to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-1,60,000 won for an aggregate of KRW 1,50,000,000 and KRW 1,50,000,000,000,000,000 KRW 1,50,000,00,000,000 KRW 1,5,000,000,000,000 KRW 1,5,000,000,00,000, KRW 2,5,000,000,00,000; and 3,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00.

(2) The portion of gift tax on 2001

On December 3, 2001, with respect to the instant real estate, the establishment of a mortgage was completed on December 3, 2001 with regard to the Plaintiff, ○○○○○○○ Bank, the maximum debt amount of KRW 156 million (120 million). On the same day, the loans of KRW 120 million have been deposited into the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name as above. In addition, according to each of the evidence No. 9, 10, and 12, the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the said deposit account on December 4, 2001 and transferred KRW 25 million to ○○○○○○○○○○○○ on January 25, 2002. However, each of the above evidence and evidence, and the remaining loans of KRW 100 million to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground that there was a lack of evidence to deem the Plaintiff’s reimbursement of the loans to ○○○○○○○ on the said deposit account.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 9 and Gap evidence No. 11-2, the plaintiff could recognize the fact that the plaintiff deposited 10,200,000 won out of the above gold account into the deposit account of ○○○○ on December 4, 2001. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received a donation of 10,200,000 won. Therefore, the imposition of gift tax for 2001 on the premise that the plaintiff received a donation of 12,000,000 won of the above loan shall be deemed to have been illegal within the extent of the above 10,200,000 won. However, since the materials recorded in the records alone cannot be re-calculated for the gift tax for 201, the entire disposition of gift tax for 201 shall be revoked

(3) The portion of gift tax on 2002

In full view of the purport of the pleadings at ○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 19-1, 2, 28, 29-1, 30-2, and 1 through 70-2, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 85,094,680,000 to the Plaintiff’s deposit account except for various loans, 00-7,000 won for the above 40-7,000 won for the above 70-7,000 won for the above 40-7,000 won for the above 40-7,000 won for the above 70-7,000 won for the above 40-7,000 won for the above 30-7,000 won for the above 40-7,000 won for the above 30-6,000 won for the above 30-6,000 won for the above 30-6,000 won for loans.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.