beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On December 28, 2004, the Plaintiff donated a building of 348.1 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant building”) in Jung-gu, Seoul and D 3.6 square meters in Seoul, Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and paid KRW 360,937,584 of the gift tax by deducting KRW 2,04,230,00 from the value of donated property, under the premise that the Plaintiff acquired the entire obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee located in the instant building on February 22, 2005, on the premise that the Plaintiff received the entire obligation to return the lease deposit to the lessee located in the instant building.
B. From July 30, 2012 to September 7, 2012, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact that the sum of KRW 1.57 billion was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff from January 3, 2005 to the account in the name of the Plaintiff, and the fact that the sum of KRW 1.370 million on June 23, 2005 was transferred from the account in the name of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff did not report the gift tax even if he received the donation from the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data by deeming that he did not report the gift tax.
C. Accordingly, on October 5, 2012, the Defendant rendered each decision on the Plaintiff’s gift tax of KRW 1,084,113,600 (including penalty tax of KRW 107,200,000, additional tax of KRW 440,913,600) as of January 3, 2005, and KRW 181,304,404,400 (including additional tax of KRW 18,400,000, additional tax of KRW 70,904,400) as of June 23, 2005 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 22, 2013, but was dismissed on December 5, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. Where a donee takes over the obligation to return a lease deposit, i.e., an onerous donation, while donating the property for which the first claim of the Plaintiff was concluded.