Seocho 209west 3314 ( November 23, 2009)

Donation as a result of money lending without compensation;

Although the representative director asserts that the money lending is part of the deposit that was concluded and paid by the golf club operation right contract, it is deemed that the money lending was received from the related party in view of corporate accounting, etc. without compensation.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of gift tax of 510,657,530 won (72,06,910 won of gift on December 30, 2003; KRW 84,966,180 of gift on December 30, 2004; KRW 113,596,440 of gift on December 30, 2005; KRW 109,053,970 of gift on December 30, 2006; KRW 127,974,030 of gift on December 30, 2007; and KRW 127,074,030 of gift on December 30, 2007).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On December 30, 2003, YAA, which is the biological mother of a person born out of wedlock of the Plaintiff, deposited the amount of KRW 2.84 billion to △△ Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as △△△ Group), the Plaintiff’s representative director, on deposit, in the amount of KRW 2.84 billion, and △△△ Group accounting of the said amount with the Plaintiff’s short-term loan, the representative director.

B. On May 1, 2009, the Defendant: (a) received a free loan of KRW 2,84,57,530 (including a report and payment in good faith) from the above pregnant AA for five years, which was specially related to Article 41-4(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9924, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “former Act”); and (b) deemed that the above amount was newly leased every year on the day following the date when one year elapsed from the date when the amount was remitted pursuant to the above provisions of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, deeming that the amount calculated by multiplying the pertinent amount by 9% per annum, which is the appropriate interest rate determined and publicly notified by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service, as the value of donated property; and (c) determined and notified the Plaintiff of the aggregate of the gift tax claimed to the Plaintiff as the gift tax (hereinafter referred to as “disposition disposition of gift tax in this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) On December 30, 2003, StandingA entered into a contract on the right to operate a golf club with △△△△○○○○○○○○○ KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, on the date of the contract, and on September 2010, it transferred KRW 2.844,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the date of completion of the golf club (hereinafter “instant agreement on the right to operate a golf club”). On the date of the contract, it transferred KRW 2.84,00,00,00 to △△○○○○ on the date of the contract.

(2) Therefore, since it did not lend 2.84 billion won to the Plaintiff without compensation, it was part of the deposit money that it concluded and paid the instant operation right contract with △△ club. Thus, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is erroneous in the misconception of facts, and thus, should be revoked.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between the parties, it is acknowledged that Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 5-1-6, Gap evidence 7-1-2, Eul evidence 8-1, 2-9, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence 5-6, Eul evidence 7-1 through 6, Eul evidence 7-1, 2, 3-2, Eul evidence 9-1 through 8-1, 6-2, Eul evidence 9-1, 10-1, 10-2, and Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 1, 3-2, and 10-1 through 8-8, and the testimony of Gap evidence 3, 6-2, 10-1, 10-2, 14-1, 3-2, 3-2, and 5-2 of the witness evidence 1-2, each of the above evidence 3-2, 1-2, and 5-B.

(1) 원고는 ◇◇클럽을 비롯한 △△공업 주식회사, ☆☆ 주식회사, □□산업 주식회사, ○○가스 주식회사, △△가스 주식회사, ▷▷리 주식회사, ☆☆▽▽이 주식회사 등의 실질 사주로서 위 회사의 자금 이동과 업무를 총괄하고 있다.

(2) On September 17, 2003, 2003, ○○○ University obtained approval on the implementation of development projects with the content of building 24 holes golf clubs (18 holes of members, and 8 holes of the public) from Bright City, and on December 13, 2003, requested the alteration of the total of 27 holes of operation on December 13, 2003, but obtained approval from the Do Governor of Bright on December 26, 2003. Then, △△△△ Group again requested the extension of additional golf clubs on March 24, 2004, but was notified of the request from the Do Governor of B right School on May 4, 2004 through the head of Brightan City, and submitted an application for designation of the implementer of the development project to the Do Governor on May 7, 2004, which had been obtained approval for the alteration of the development project on September 15, 2006.

(3) 원고는 2003. 12. 24. 원고의 손자인 이CC이 최대주주로 있는 ★★ 주식회사(이하 '★★'라 한다)에게 29억 3,500만 원을 대여하였고, ★★는 같은 날 임AA으로부터 ☆☆▽▽이 주식회사의 주식 100,000주, △△가스 주식회사의 주식 60,000주, ■■가스공업 주식회사의 주식 52,500주, ◆◆산업 주식회사의 주식 16,333주, △△공업 주식회사의 주식 10,000주 등을 매수하면서 임AA에게 대금 29억 3,500만 원을 지급하였다.

(4) On December 30, 2003, on the transfer of KRW 2,840,000,000 to △△ club. △△ club dealt with it as the temporary deposit of the Plaintiff, the representative director, but appropriated it as the Plaintiff’s short-term loan in the accounting document, and thereafter, continuously included it in the financial statements in the short-term loan and did not state it as the credit of the deposit money.

(5) △△ club did not undergo a resolution, etc. of the board of directors in relation to the instant contract for operation rights, and did not undergo any particular review on the appropriate amount of deposit in relation to the instant contract for operation rights.

(6) At the time of the tax investigation on December 9, 2008, the AA stated that the transfer of shares at the time of the tax investigation on December 9, 2008 was in accordance with the decision of the Plaintiff and did not participate in the same daily. The said transfer of shares was deposited into the head of the Tong, and that the Plaintiff was at the time of the management of the head of the Tong.

D. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, pursuant to subparagraph 8 of Article 20 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 22, 2008); 2.840,00,000 won, which was remitted to △△△ club on December 30, 2003, is not part of the deposit money which it concluded and paid with △△ club the instant operation right contract; but it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s specially related party under Article 41-4(1) of the former Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 2, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20621, Feb. 1, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 20388, Feb. 18, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 20100, Apr. 4, 2014).

(1) On December 30, 2003, ○○ club dealt with KRW 2.84,000,00,000, which was remitted from the AA to the representative director, as a lump sum deposit, and then appropriated it in the account document as the Plaintiff’s short-term loan, and thereafter, continued to include only the financial statements in the Plaintiff’s short-term loan, and did not state that it is a deposit in relation to the instant previous operation license contract. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it seems very exceptional to have neglected to keep the large amount of money deposited to the company as it is for a considerable period, even if it accounts for a short-term loan of the representative director, which is completely different from the deposit money, and it is difficult to regard it as the number

(2) In full view of the fact that △△ club did not undergo a resolution of the board of directors or a review of the appropriate deposit in relation to the instant agreement on operation right, and that at the time when the said amount was deposited in KRW 2.84 billion, the final approval on the construction of 36 holes golf clubs was not yet granted, and that at least 1/2 of the deposit was paid on the date of the contract, taking into account the relationship with the Plaintiff, even if considering the relationship between the Plaintiff and the forestA, it is highly doubtful that the said amount was paid on the same day.

(3) In light of the fact that at the time of the tax investigation on December 2003, AA only knew about the decision of the Plaintiff, and furthermore, the Plaintiff stated that the said share transfer proceeds were managed by the Plaintiff, and the relationship between the Plaintiff and A.A., at the time, A.A appears to have granted all authority regarding the use of the said share transfer proceeds to the Plaintiff. Therefore, at the time, the Plaintiff could have used the said share transfer proceeds free of charge without any restriction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.