early 2012,0969 ( October 20, 2012)

It is reasonable to view that the source of the acquisition price of apartment is the Plaintiff’s money and the title trust of this real estate.

It is reasonable to view that the source of the acquisition price of apartment buildings is the money of the plaintiff and the title trust of this real estate, in light of the fact that the purchase price is determined as the agent of the purchase price and all rights including the payment of lease deposits and capital gains tax,

2012Guhap38206 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimAAAA

The head of Yangcheon Tax Office

April 5, 2013

June 7, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 (including penalty tax) imposed on the Plaintiff on September 2, 2011 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 November 29, 2006, KimBB, the Plaintiff, the Dong Jae-in, sold the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment house No. 000, 000 and 0000 on a lot of land (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of JungCC on February 8, 2007. The Plaintiff received KRW 000,000, out of the purchase price of the apartment of this case from KimB O, and (b) on September 2, 2011, the Defendant received a decision of dismissal from the Director of the Regional Tax Office on 00,000, deducting KRW 00,000, and capital gains tax, from KRW 200,000, and the Plaintiff received a gift tax and additional tax from KimO, but received a decision of dismissal from the Director of the Regional Tax Office on 201,201,000,000,000,000.

2. Whether the disposition in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the apartment of this case was registered in title to KimBB, the apartment of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and 000 won is owned by the plaintiff. Therefore, the apartment of this case is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The circumstances leading up to the transfer of the instant apartment

(A) On September 30, 199 with respect to the apartment of this case, "(a) the mortgagee was established on September 30, 199: the second bank, II Bank, and II Bank, and the debtor: Kim II, and the maximum debt amount:00 won (actual collateral obligation: 00 won)." (b) The plaintiff paid the down payment 00 won on August 21, 2002, and 00 won on September 30, 200, respectively.

(C) On October 1, 2002, the Plaintiff sent KRW 000 to his own account. KimBB repaid KRW 000 to one bank on the same day. On the same day, the Plaintiff wired KRW 000 to KimO, a certified judicial scrivener on the same day. KimB completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on the same day. The Plaintiff paid KRW 00 to KimO on October 2, 2012.

(D) The right to collateral security of one bank was registered on October 15, 2002 by the debtor KimBB, and the maximum debt amount at KRW 000, respectively.

(E) According to the FIB Agreement, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000,000, as described in Table 1, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account of KimBB from one bank account, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000,000, interest on collateral obligations of one bank as listed in Table 1.

(B) The details of the remittance of interest shall be omitted.

(F) On November 22, 2006, the right to collateral security of one bank was cancelled on the same day. On the other hand, with respect to the apartment of this case, the right to collateral security of the apartment of this case was created by the National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (hereinafter referred to as the "Agricultural Cooperative"), the debtor: the plaintiff, and the maximum amount of debt: 00 won (actual collateral obligation: 00 won).

(2) The details of the transfer of the apartment of this case and the use of the price

(A) On November 29, 2006, the Plaintiff, on behalf of KimBB, sold the instant apartment at KRW 000, and concluded a sales contract with the effect that “(i) KRW 000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 000 on the intermediate payment at KRW 00 on the date of the contract, and KRW 000 on March 5, 2007, and ② the remaining payment date may be front by mutual agreement, and ② the remaining payment date may be front by mutual agreement, and ③ the Plaintiff shall be present at the time of the payment of the remaining payment, and the cancellation of the agricultural cooperative mortgage.”

(B) On February 8, 2007, the Plaintiff paid 000 won (i.e., principal KRW 000 + interest KRW 000) with the purchase price of the apartment of this case. The NAC’s mortgage was cancelled on February 12, 2007.

(C) On November 13, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired OO apartment 000 00 000 dong 0000 from EDR. The Plaintiff paid EOO a total of KRW 000 on January 2, 2007, and KRW 000 on February 8, 2007, and KRW 000 on the same day, and KRW 000 on brokerage commission to EO, respectively.

(D) On December 4, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000 to EO, one’s own at fault, with the transfer proceeds of the instant apartment, and paid KRW 000 as the lease deposit of the instant apartment to EO on February 8, 2007.

(E) On February 27, 2007, HoO, the spouse of the Plaintiff, acquired KRW 000 from OO for 000,000. The Plaintiff paid KRW 000 to O on February 8, 2007 with the purchase price of the instant apartment.

(f) The details of the use of the transfer price of the apartment of this case are as follows:

(B) The details of the use of the transfer proceeds are omitted.

(G) The Plaintiff paid KRW 000, totaling KRW 000, and KRW 000,000 on March 23, 2010 as capital gains tax of the apartment of this case.

(3) The financial status, etc. of KimBB

(A) At the time of the acquisition of the apartment in this case, KimBB had been undergraduates at 21 years of age, and was residing in the house of the GlaO.

(B) At the time of the acquisition of the apartment in this case, the Plaintiff was in office at the OO bank. The Plaintiff and MaOO was residing in the company house entered from the said company.

(C) The parents of KimBB owned an OB 00 land 136 square meters and Ri 000 square meters, i.e., OB 00 square meters, and at the time of January 1, 2006, the officially assessed individual land price of the above land was KRW 000 and the individual housing price of the above building was KRW 000.

[Ground of recognition] The statements in Gap evidence 2 to 5, evidence 7 to 12 (including household numbers), and Eul evidence 2 and 3; the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) As long as it is revealed that a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax is filed, and that a deposit in the name of a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and there are special circumstances, such as withdrawing such deposit and withdrawing the deposit in the taxpayer’s name, rather than as a donation, the need to prove this is the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). Moreover, even if the source of the money paid in the taxpayer’s name is revealed to be a donor by the tax authority, such money is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.

(2) As indicated in Table 2, the check received from KimBB, or from KimB, was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, and KRW 00 is presumed to have been donated in accordance with the above legal principles. However, the source of the apartment house in this case is ① The purchase price of the apartment in this case, the deposit of the apartment in this case, and the repayment of the obligations of KimBBB, the same amount as that of the Plaintiff’s bank (the withdrawal price in the account in this case and the repayment of the obligations of KimBBB are the same as that of the same date, and the Plaintiff’s repayment of the obligations of the Plaintiff’s money, and the registration cost and interest (from January 17, 2005 to November 17, 2006, the money transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to KimB’s account, and the Plaintiff appears to have not been paid the Plaintiff’s assets from the Plaintiff’s apartment house to the Plaintiff’s husband’s account, and the Plaintiff’s assets were not determined to have been transferred to the Plaintiff’s owner’s assets, and to the extent.

(3) Therefore, since the Plaintiff leased the name from KimBBB to acquire and sell the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff is deemed to own the Plaintiff, and the instant disposition based on the premise of donation is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as citing it, and it is also decided as ordered.