Seoul Administrative Court 2016Guhap6209 ( October 24, 2017)

Whether the time of change of the name of the policyholder can be seen as the time of donation, and whether the calculation of the value of donated property according to the time of donation

The date of donation through a change in the name of the policyholder and the beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case is October 31, 2008, and KRW 1,476,398,672 equivalent to the termination refund calculated according to the terms and conditions of the insurance contract of this case is the most appropriate amount for the property value of the policyholder of the insurance contract of this case and the beneficiary's status as the beneficiary.

31 Scope of donated property under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2017Nu42677 Disposition Revocation of Imposition of Gift Tax

Park AA

Head of the District Tax Office

on October 24, 2017

on October 16, 2017

on October 30, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the part exceeding KRW 339,378,725 of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 607,402,860 (including additional tax) on September 2, 2013.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (2) and the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff’s new or new argument in the trial to the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph (3). Therefore, the meaning of the summary used in this case is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the meaning

2. Parts to be removed or added;

○ The 6th page "Plaintiff" in the second place is regarded as an "heir".

○ The title " September 11, 2013" under Chapter 8 below the second table shall be " September 2, 2013".

"249,646,879 won" in the third place of action shall be "249,464,879 won".

○ 3. 5 to 6 on the 3rd side [based on recognition] add “A evidence 7” to “A. 7.”

○ The second part of the second part is "this court" to be "court of the first instance."

○ The second page " October 10, 2017" shall be deemed " October 10, 2017".

3. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The insurance contract of this case also has the nature of life insurance, and it is unlawful to calculate the value of donated property based on the value of termination refund which is much larger than that of the Plaintiff, since the insurance proceeds that the Plaintiff could have received upon the assumption that BB had died within the first insurance period.

B. Determination

However, according to Article 60(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the evaluation of the value of donated property shall be based on the date of donation, and the fact that the plaintiff transferred the status of the contractor and beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case to XX. The plaintiff is not subject to death of BB based on the above 20 XX. P. The plaintiff did not have any limitation on receiving the termination refund by exercising his right of termination. Thus, the amount that corresponds to the value of the policyholder and beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case donated to the plaintiff is the most equivalent amount of the termination refund. The plaintiff's above argument is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.