Seoul Administrative Court 2009Guhap35344 ( October 10, 2010)

Seocho 209west 1716 (Law No. 30, 2009)

be presumed to be a donation if the deposit is withdrawn and deposited into the account in the name of the taxpayer.

As long as the deposit in the name of a donor is withdrawn and the deposit is revealed to have been made in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. As such, the Plaintiff’s deposit is deemed to have been withdrawn from the head of the Tong-ro division’s account and was used after being deposited in

2010Nu24199 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

30

O Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2009Guhap35344 decided June 10, 2010

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant limited to December 4, 2008 against the Plaintiff:

1. Disposition of imposition of KRW 28,700,380 on gift tax imposed by the netB on August 29, 2003 by deeming that it donated KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff on August 29, 200;

2. Disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 29,019,080,000, which was imposed by ParkCC, on August 29, 2003, deeming that it donated KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff;

3. The portion exceeding KRW 79,46,727 of the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 99,941,710, which was imposed by ParkCC, on May 28, 2007, by deeming that it donated KRW 242,80,00 to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2007,

4. The imposition of KRW 63,594,390 on the gift tax imposed by ParkCC by deeming that it donated KRW 121,89,930 to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2007 shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

A. The reasoning for this case is that the court’s reasoning is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are dismissed or added, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Parts to be removed or added

"(1) The testimony of ParkCC by the 7th 1st son of the first instance court decision is added to the witness "PCC and the 7th 5th DoD testimony", and the following is added to the 1st 5th 7th ........." (It is difficult to deem that the netB and ParkCC have proved that the 1st Dob and ParkCC have transferred the 1st 2th 2th 2th 2th 190th 190th 190th 190th 2th 192th 2th 20 ..........).

"(2) 제1심 판결문 제7쪽 9행의갑 2호증의 기재만으로는' 다음에 '이 사건 제3, 5 금액이 입금된 시기와 내역, 원고가 송금받은 금원 중 일부를 곧바로 인출하여 주식투자에 사용하기까지 하였던 사정 등에 비추어'를 추가하고, 제7쪽 17행 다음에 아래 내 용을 추가한다.",『(원고는 위와 같이 송금받은 제3, 5금액 중 2억 원을 2007. 7. 27.경 ZZ은행 YY동지점의 대여금고에서 인출한 다음 박CC가 보유하고 있는 QQ은행 WWW지점의 대여금고에 입금함으로써 위 금액 상당을 상환하였다는 취지로도 주장하나, 제1심 법원의 QQ은행 WWW지점장, ZZ은행 YY동지점장에 대한 각 사실조회결과만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으므로, 원고의 위 주장도 이유 없다.)』

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.