early 2010west3992 (Law No. 19, 2011)

the time of deposit and the process of finding each of the deposits in this case shall be deemed to constitute the donation in advance.

In the case of the claim for division of inherited property, the deceased donated each of the deposits of this case to the Plaintiff, but the decision that does not constitute a special benefit, and considering the amount of each deposit, the time of deposit and the time of finding each of the deposits of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the deceased donated the deposit as a supplementary answer to the support of the Plaintiff at the time of purchase of the store of this case.

2011Guhap20673 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

XX

Head of Seocho Tax Office

November 23, 2011

December 7, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 35,011,760 against the Plaintiff on October 30, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 22, 1990, NoAA (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") owns a house with 000-0 m2 and 438 m2 in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "house of this case") and a house with 49 m2 and its ground and store (hereinafter referred to as "house of this case") purchased on June 29, 198, the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government purchased on June 29, 198. In relation to the housing of this case and the store of this case, the title trust was completed after completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff, who is its son.

B. On May 13, 2003, the Deceased deposited KRW 707,424,00 out of the balance of KRW 71,000,000,000, which was sold to the Plaintiff in title trust, in the account of the National Bank XX Dong branch of the National Bank. After investing in various financial property, the Deceased opened a deposit account in the name of each Plaintiff at the National Bank XXdong branch of the National Bank and Seocho-dong branch of the National Bank, and deposited KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter “each of the instant deposits”) on May 26, 2003.

C. After the deceased died on February 19, 2004, the plaintiff sought payment of each of the deposits of this case at the NB dong branch of the National Bank on March 10, 2004, upon becoming aware of the existence of each of the deposits of this case. However, on February 27, 2004, the National Bank rejected the plaintiff's claim for payment of each of the deposits of this case on the ground that it received notification to the effect that "the plaintiff should not pay each of the deposits of this case to the plaintiff because it is not the true heir of the deceased."

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit against the National Bank as Seoul △△△△△△ District Court 20047 and 21232. On June 15, 2004, the National Bank deposited KRW 208,099,658 with the deceased’s heir or the Plaintiff as the principal of the deposit on June 15, 2004 with the Seoul △△△△△△△△△ District Court 1278, and on October 13, 2004, the said court rendered a judgment that “the National Bank confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right to claim the return of deposit money for KRW 208,09,658, total principal and interest deposited with the Seoul △△△△△△△△△△△△ District Court 1278, Jun. 15, 2004, the said judgment was finalized at that time, and the Plaintiff received the deposit around December 7, 2004.

E. On October 30, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff received each of the instant deposits from the Deceased, and imposed a total of KRW 35,011,760 (35,01,760 on May 26, 2003 + KRW 9.8 million of the gift tax on KRW 100,000 + KRW 25,211,760 of the gift tax on KRW 100,000 on May 30 of the same year (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

F. On October 22, 2010, the Plaintiff requested the Tax Tribunal to decide on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 19, 201.

[Ground for Recognition: The absence of dispute, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, 4-6, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the measure of this case was adopted

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to purchase the store of this case, the deceased borrowed KRW 80 million from the Hanil Bank on July 4, 198, but paid KRW 80 million from the plaintiff around July 21, 1990. After that, the deceased deposited each of the deposits of this case in order to repay the principal and interest of KRW 80 million borrowed from the plaintiff as the price for the sale of the store of this case. Thus, the defendant's disposition of this case was unlawful, even if the plaintiff was not donated each of the deposits from the deceased.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

In light of the above facts and evidence No. 1 to No. 23, No. 2, and No. 4 to 7, and No. 1 to 9 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 9 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 2, each of the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by taking into account the purport of the Plaintiff’s deposit No. 1 to 9 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 2 and No. 9 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 9 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 30 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 97, May 14, 190, and the Plaintiff’s deposit money No. 9 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 2 to 90 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 97 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 97 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 1 to 30 of the deceased’s deposit account No. 97.

Meanwhile, according to the above evidence, it is true that the deceased's heir 00 won was invested or lent to 15 million won on the ground of 100-0 m238m2 in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government around 1990, when the deceased purchased △△ Sports case at KRW 100 million. The deceased's assertion that 200 million out of the purchase price after selling the housing and the store of this case was known that 100,000 won was deposited to the bank of this case, and that 100,000 won was not recognized as 50,000 won for each of the above 100,000 won. However, the deceased's claim that 100,000 won was presented to 10,000 won for the purpose of 90,000 won for each of the above 100,000 won loans.

3. Conclusion

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