(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.31 2015누66891

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.05.31 2015누66891

증여세등부과처분취소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of appeal and the incidental costs thereof shall be individually considered.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of dismissal and dismissal as follows.

Jin-Jon land in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, which is another land for which the transfer value is not verified among the real estate owned by the Plaintiff in part 5, 17 and 18 E of the judgment of the first instance court, is not verified, and 418,23,700 won, which is the aggregate of the officially announced values at the time of transfer, shall be additionally deducted from the value of donated property.

The plaintiff shall prove that the transfer price of the land owned by the plaintiff was additionally deposited in each of the accounts of this case in addition to the defendant's approval of deduction in the part 6 to 10 of the judgment of the first instance court. There is no evidence to acknowledge whether the officially announced price at the time of transfer of other land owned by the plaintiff, the amount of actual transfer price, and the amount of transfer price entered each of the accounts of this case.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

Part 3 of the first instance court's decision "38,000,000 won" is "380,000,000 won".

B. Under the 12th judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant asserts that the money in each of the instant accounts was formed by the contribution of the inheritee, and thus, it should be deemed as the property of the inheritee. Since part of the money was transferred to the Plaintiff’s account or used as the Plaintiff’s acquisition fund of real estate, and the Plaintiff’s payment fund of tax to be paid, the said money is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff. Even if it is not presumed that the money was donated, the money gratuitously transferred to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be deemed as a donation. Thus, the Defendant asserts that only some of the amount withdrawn from the passbook should not

However, among the money withdrawn by the decedent, the plaintiff's assets are increased.

참조조문

-상속세 및 증여세법 제2조 제3항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016. 05. 31. 선고 2015누66891 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.12.06 2016누63226

-서울고등법원 2016. 12. 06. 선고 2016누63226 판결

-서울고등법원 2014.06.12 2013누51130

-서울고등법원 2019.07.05 2018나2071503