The key issue amount of this case that the Plaintiff received as his father's earned income from his workplace is insufficient evidence.

Although the plaintiff submitted a written confirmation prepared by the employees who provided labor to his father's workplace, such confirmation alone is insufficient to admit the amount the plaintiff received from his father's workplace as wages.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap68676 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

AA

00 000 000 000, 000 000

Law Firm 000 (Attorney in Charge 000)

00. Head of tax office

Litigation performers 000

June 12, 2015

July 3, 2015

1. On January 9, 2014, the part exceeding KRW 9,484,446 of the gift tax of February 12, 2007 among the gift tax of KRW 20,676,464 as to the gift on February 12, 2007, and the part exceeding KRW 31,30,933 of the gift tax of KRW 42,310,93 as to the gift on April 26, 2007, shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 4/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 363,302,100 in aggregate of the gift taxes stated in the attached list that the Plaintiff rendered on January 9, 2014 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 9, 2014, the Defendant imposed KRW 36,313,394 on the Plaintiff’s father BB from 2004 to 2010 on gift tax of KRW 363,302,10 as stated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant disposition”). (b) the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 2, 2014, but was dismissed on July 2, 2014. [Grounds for Recognition] There is no dispute, the Plaintiff’s entries (including the serial number, hereinafter the same shall apply) in Gap’s evidence No. 12, Eul’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) Processing benefit 344,366,846 won is not donated as remuneration for work even if the Plaintiff received the Plaintiff in charge of the overall business of five places of business operated by BB. Only deposit the Plaintiff’s benefits into the borrowed name account opened by the employee who was in charge of the practice at the time, and the account was processed as the benefit of the account holder.

2) Of KRW 321,946,548, which was withdrawn from the account of BB, KRW 28,500,000 and KRW 48,206,00, which was used as the funds for DD study, that was transferred to CCC, and KRW 245,240,548, which was used as the funds for DD study, cannot be deemed as having been donated to the Plaintiff, and all remaining KRW 245,240,548 were withdrawn from BB’s order and used to make a withdrawal to BB or to purchase the equipment required by BB.

3) KRW 7,00,000, which was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account, was received from the lessee as a increase in the deposit for lease on a deposit basis or as a personal monetary transaction with the 000 square meters, or as a direction by BBB, did not receive the equipment from BB, but did not receive the equipment from BB.

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of each statement in the evidence B of subparagraphs B through 7, the Plaintiff received 34,36,846 won in total from BB to EE’s account as shown in the separate sheet, 2E did not have worked in the company run by BB, 321,946,548 won in total or by account transfer (70,000 won in total) as described in the separate sheet, 40,000 won in the separate sheet, 200,000 won in total from BB account to 15, 200,000 won in the same account, 5,000,000 won in the separate sheet, 200,000 won in the separate sheet, 10,000 won in the separate sheet, 20,50,000 won in the separate sheet, 20,50,000 won in the same account, 200,000 won in the same way as the Plaintiff’s account.

2) In order to prove that the Plaintiff provided labor at the time, the Plaintiff submitted the employee’s written confirmation (No. 6-1,3). However, the employee who submitted the written confirmation only worked for 000,000, as well as for 000,000, and 000, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff provided labor only after the decision of dismissal by the Tax Tribunal, and there is insufficient evidence to support that the Plaintiff received KRW 34,36,846 from BB as benefits.

3) In addition, with respect to KRW 321,946,584, which the Plaintiff withdrawn from or transferred to another account under the name of BB, the Plaintiff is presumed to have received the said money under the direction of BB, or unless there is any evidence supporting that the Plaintiff used it for any other purpose than the donation. However, according to the evidence Eul evidence 4, the Plaintiff’s remaining amount of money transferred from the BB’s account with KRW 10,006,000 to the DB’s account on January 26, 2007, KRW 19,000,000 on February 12, 2007, KRW 200,000 on April 12, 2007, KRW 200,000, KRW 28,500,000 on April 2, 200, 207, 2006, 206, 2006, 2006, 207.

4) 70,00,000 won, which was transferred from the account under the name of AA to the Plaintiff’s account on the same day, is presumed to have been donated from BB to the account under the name of AB in light of the fact that the same amount was transferred from the account under the name of AB to the Plaintiff’s account (Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). The Plaintiff’s assertion alone is insufficient to recognize that the said money was received for any purpose other than donation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. D. The portion exceeding KRW 9,484,464, among the gift tax imposed by the Defendant on February 12, 2007, exceeds KRW 9,484,466, and the portion exceeding KRW 42,310,93,303,3039,3039,3039,30,3039, etc. of gift tax on April 26, 2007.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Young-young

Judges Maap-man