logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2018.12.13 2018구합2001
증여세부과처분취소
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. The Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s spouse B, and the Plaintiff’s mother C (hereinafter “the inheritee”) jointly purchased Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Land and Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the purchase price of KRW 2.46 million. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff and B completed the respective registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of KRW 2/5 and 1/5.

B. As the decedent died on March 6, 2015 and the inheritance commenced on September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the inheritance tax base on September 30, 2015, on the ground that “the Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 2/5 [the acquisition value: KRW 9160,000,000 - KRW 165,000,000 - KRW 165,000] x 2/5,000,000 from the decedent, borrowed KRW 784,00 from the decedent before the commencement of the inheritance, and repaid KRW 170,113,50 from the decedent before the commencement of the inheritance, the Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 613,886,50 (=784,000,00 - KRW 170,113,500, and hereinafter “instant amount”).

C. On January 11, 2017, the Defendant deemed that the decedent donated the instant key amount to the Plaintiff, and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 148,520,270 (including additional taxes) of the gift tax in 2015.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiff appealed against the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal, but was dismissed on November 8, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s argument 1 decedent lent the key amount to the Plaintiff.

In other words, at the time of the acquisition of the instant real estate, the decedent was the end of the death cancer, the father E of the Plaintiff was the one with severe dementia, and the decedent disposed of the F building owned by the decedent for the purpose of securing cash for medical expenses, etc., and the decedent disposed of the F building owned by the decedent.

arrow