Whether the remittance amount of the passbook can be recognized as the acquisition fund of the building in the presumption of donation of acquisition fund.

The fact that the money was transferred to others under the name of the head of the Tong, the fact that the money was deposited in the land, the fact that the money was borrowed can be recognized, but there is no objective evidence that it was used as the money for building construction, and thus, the gift tax imposition disposition

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquiring Property)

Article 47 (Taxable Amount of Gift Tax)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 74,315,150 on February 4, 2008 against the Plaintiff on February 4, 2008 is revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. On December 26, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation on one half of each of the two parts of the instant building, along with this right, with respect to a reinforced concrete building (refinite concrete 6 floors above the third floor, 2,412.84 square meters above the floor area, 2,412.84 square meters below the third floor below the ground of the instant land, which was newly constructed on the ground of ○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○-dong, ○○-17, hereinafter referred to as “instant land”). On March 31, 2004, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant building on the ground of donation from this right on March 24, 2004, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the portion of each of the instant land (i.e., the instant building and on the ground of donation from this right on March 24, 2004).

B. On May 31, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a return on the taxable value and tax base of donated property to the Defendant on March 24, 2004, on the gift of 55/100 of the instant land and 20/10 of the instant building (211,463,823 won of the taxable value of donated property) = 662,821,882 won of the value of donated property - the amount of debts acquired as 451,358,059 won of the amount of debts 451,358,059, after deducting 300 million won of the deducted amount of donated property from the spouse’s donation, to the effect that there is no

C. On December 8, 2005, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition fund for the new construction of the building of this case is not confirmed; (b) on December 30, 2005, 710,749,048 won calculated by deducting deposit deposit of KRW 229,750,952 from deposit of KRW 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s initial equity interest (including value-added tax) from deposit of KRW 1.81 billion; and (c) on December 26, 2003, the Defendant notified the Defendant of the imposition of gift tax of KRW 100,562,00 for the year 2003 and KRW 66,236,000 for the year 204,000 for the gift tax of KRW 10,562,000 for the year 204; and (d) on December 30, 2005, the Defendant filed a prior notice of taxation on the gift tax of this case with the Defendant.

D. After that, on March 9, 2006, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff donated KRW 435,958,176 from this right to ○○○; and (b) determined and notified the gift tax of KRW 29,108,280 on the gift of December 26, 2003; and (c) KRW 51,850,380 on the gift of March 24, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a request for a national tax trial on June 7, 2006; (b) the National Tax Tribunal rejected the request; (c) imposed the gift tax of KRW 29,108,280 on the gift of April 26, 2007, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay KRW 466,000,000 on the gift of KRW 29,100,28,280 on the gift of December 26, 2007, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for a trial.

E. Accordingly, the defendant, around May 8, 2007, reduced or corrected the total amount of KRW 29,108,280 for the gift tax on the gift of December 26, 2003 to the plaintiff on December 26, 2003, while the amount of KRW 31,854,980 for the gift tax on the gift of March 24, 2004 to have remaining KRW 19,95,408 for the gift tax.

F. However, on February 4, 2008, the Defendant: (a) calculated the taxable value of donated property in 2004 on the Plaintiff; (b) deemed the deposit of KRW 46 million as KRW 437,031,215, out of the amount of the debt acquired; and (c) deemed KRW 215,500,000 as the value of donated property subject to summing-up pursuant to Article 47(2) of the Act; and (d) calculated the remaining amount after deducting KRW 352,531,215,00,000 after deducting KRW 352,531,215,00,000 from the amount of donated property deduction (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-7, Gap evidence 8-2, Gap evidence 14, Gap evidence 15, and 16-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2-3, 5, and 6-1, 3, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① Around January 8, 2002, the Plaintiff was a 150 million won in total borrowed from ○○○○, a malary right holder of ○○○-2 and 1/6 of the land on three and another parcel of land in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, an Ansan-si, and delegated the sale and purchase of the said land to ○○○, Inc., and sold the said land to ○○, and received a loan from ○○, Inc., and ③ around August 21, 2003, 200 million won in total from ○○, Inc. (hereinafter “○○ Bank”) as a fund to construct the instant building, but it did not recognize it as the fund for acquiring the building, and thus, the Defendant’s disposition of imposition of the instant disposition was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquiring Property)

Article 47 (Taxable Amount of Gift Tax)

Article 53 (Gift Property Deductions)

Article 34 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquisition of Property)

C. Determination

(1) Details and burden of proof of section 45(1) of the Act

(A) According to Article 45(1) of the Act and Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, where it is difficult to recognize that a person acquired the property by means of his/her own means in view of his/her occupation, age, income, property status, etc., and where (i) reported or taxed income, (ii) the value of the returned or taxable property, and (iii) money or debt received in return for the disposal of the property, and the amount used directly for the acquisition of the property or the repayment of the obligation in question, is less than the acquisition value of the property, the acquisition fund of the property in question shall be presumed to have been donated to the purchaser of the property at the time of the acquisition of the property, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that the donation is not a gift (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu3272, Feb

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to this case’s health team, Gap evidence Nos. 2-2, and Eul evidence No. 5, the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the plaintiff is a Korean national residing abroad as a large-scale group of 50 years of age who did not have any income report at the time of donation. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is presumed to have received a donation from Lee ○○ authority for the acquisition fund of the building of this case or the equivalent share thereof, and therefore, the plaintiff is not a donation

(2) Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

(A) The portion of the borrowed money from the order of 100 m3

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 24-1, 2, 25, 26, 29-1, 26, and 30-1, 2, 30, and 31-1, 24-2, and 31-2, the plaintiff transferred the money of KRW 6 million to 00 million to ○○○○○○○ on April 10, 2003, to each of the above 1, 2000,000 won to the National Bank Accounts (Account Number: A) in the name of the plaintiff, in the order of punishment, and the whole purport of the arguments. However, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have otherwise acknowledged that the money was remitted to the above ○○○○ on September 26, 2005, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that the money was remitted to 500,000,000 won to ○○ on June 23, 2004.

(B) The part concerning the purchase price of land between Ansan-si ○○○-2 and three parcels of land

In full view of the purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 17 through 20, this right was sold to the seller himself as the plaintiff and the sales agent of this case on September 26, 2001 at KRW 1.56,50 million on September 26, 200. On March 7, 2002, 00 to ○○○ ○○ Ga-2 Forest Land, which succeeded to the status of the purchaser of the above land at KRW 1.66,4 million on March 7, 2002, and then again sold the above land at KRW 00,000,000,000 for KRW 1.6,4,000,000,000 for KRW 1.6,4,000,000 on September 27, 2001, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff received the purchase price of the above land from each of the Plaintiff’s shares at KRW 05,00,000 on September 31, 2001.

(C) The portion of loans from ○ bank

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence No. 8-2 and evidence No. 13, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 200 million after completing the registration of creation of a mortgage over the instant land, etc. on August 21, 2003 to ○○ Bank. However, the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff used the loan KRW 200 million as the price for the new construction of the instant building, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall not be accepted as it is without merit and it shall be decided as per Disposition.