Lighting-2017-Lighting-1413,1414 ( October 27, 2017),

It is legitimate to impose inheritance tax and gift tax on deeming that cash has been donated before inheritance.

It seems that the plaintiff was donated cash from his father and mother, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff was paid the money lent to his parent, so the first imposition of inheritance tax and gift tax is legitimate.

Article 4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Article 4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act) Presumption of donation of property transferred to the spouse, etc.

Jeonju District Court-2017-Gu Partnership-2513 (Law No. 30, 2018)

B00

It was deposited into the account in the name of △ Bank.

1) Although the written claim is written as " July 14, 2016," the written claim seems to be written as "A's 1 to 4, in light of the respective descriptions in subparagraph 1-4, it appears to be written as " July 5, 2016."

2) Although the written claim is written as " July 11, 2016," the written claim seems to be written as "A" on July 5, 2016 in light of the written evidence No. 2.

Date and

remitters

Deposit Account Number

(Seong Bank)

addressee

Bank Account Number

(Seong Bank)

Amount

January 16, 2009

Deceased

54-11-***

54-24-***

20 million won

February 27, 2009

Deceased

54-11-***

54-24-***

20 million won

February 17, 201

Deceased

54-21-***

54-25-***

14 million won

Mano-friendly

023-37-***

40 million won

55-21-***

6 million won

54-21-***

140 million won

Total

60 million won

2) The head of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Defendant 1, from March 10, 2016 to April 18, 2016, shall be subject to investigation 2.

From January 1, 009 to December 31, 2012, the government conducted a survey on the source of funds against the plaintiff and Lee ○○.

3) On July 5, 2016, Defendant ○○ Head of the tax office had the Plaintiff and the Deceased and Lee ○○○○○.

from the date of donation of the issue amount of this case, as set forth in the following table 1 to 4

The head of the tax office on July 5, 2016 determined and notified a total of KRW 209,431,80.

the deceased’s transfer of the sum of KRW 414 billion to the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff to the deceased’s prior donation property.

The inheritance tax was included in the taxable amount of inheritance tax, and the inheritance tax was corrected and notified 69,793,070 won as listed in the table 5 below.

No.

Date and

Notice Tax Amount

Additional Tax

Total

Evidence

1

January 16, 2009

47,685,600 won

1,430,560 won

49,116,160 won

A No. 1-2

2

February 27, 2009

79,092,00 won

2,372,760 won

81,464,760 won

A No. 1-4 Evidence

3

February 17, 201

4,924,080 won

47,720 won

5,071,800 won

A No. 1-1 Certificate

4

February 17, 201

7,730,120 won

2,331,900 won

80,062,020 won

A No. 1-3

5

April 15, 2013

69,793,070 won

2,093,790 won

71,886,860 won

A No. 2

C. Plaintiff’s objection

1) On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an objection with the commissioner of a regional tax office against the Plaintiff on September 30, 2016, and the commissioner of a regional tax office 00 Commissioner of a regional tax office: (i) the imposition of gift tax against the Plaintiff on July 5, 2016 by Defendant ○○ Head of a regional tax office on November 18, 2016; and (ii) whether the imposition of gift tax against the Plaintiff on July 5, 2016 constitutes a gift of KRW 414 million deposited from the Deceased and a gift of KRW 186 million deposited to the Plaintiff from ○○○○

The result of the reinvestigation is to correct the gift tax base and tax amount according to the results of the reinspection.

On July 5, 2016, the head issued an inheritance tax disposition against the plaintiff on July 5, 2016 determined that the assessment of inheritance tax shall be corrected according to the result of re-investigation of KRW 414 million deposited from the deceased to the plaintiff.

2) The director of the tax office having jurisdiction over the Plaintiff from December 5, 2016 to December 23, 2016 shall re-examine the Plaintiff.

After conducting the investigation, the investigation period was extended by January 20, 2017 upon the Plaintiff’s request, and the investigation was conducted, and on February 6, 2017, notified the Plaintiff of the result of the tax investigation that the initial disposition is maintained on the ground that the key issue amount cannot be considered as repayment of the loan.

(d) Procedures of the previous trial; and

1) On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal on March 17, 2017, and filed a petition for a tax trial.

on July 27, 2017, the Board considered that the property donated by the Plaintiff on February 27, 2009 is KRW 100 million, and decided on February 27, 2009 and April 15, 2013 that the gift tax on the donation and the inheritance tax on the share of inheritance shall be corrected.

2) Accordingly, part of the gift tax of KRW 51,856,200 among the above disposition and part of the inheritance tax of KRW 7,789,695

A disposition of imposition of KRW 157,575,60, and inheritance tax of KRW 62,03,375, as well as KRW 62,00,00 after a reduction or correction (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

3) On August 2, 2017, the Plaintiff was served with the decision of the Tax Tribunal and on October 31, 2017.

The proposal was filed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

As to the issue amount of this case, which is the sum of money remitted by the deceased and Lee ○○ to the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name, the Defendants determined that the deceased and Lee ○○ was the property donated to the Plaintiff, and imposed gift tax and inheritance tax. However, the key amount of this case was as follows:

As a result, the Plaintiff donated a total of KRW 600 million from the Deceased (hereinafter referred to as “instant A”).

(2) In the following circumstances, the deceased’s use as his business fund and investment fund:

(2) The plaintiff 20 million won on January 17, 2005, September 30, 2005, the amount of KRW 250 million on September 30, 2005, and the amount of KRW 10 million on July 12, 2006

After borrowing KRW 50 million and KRW 600 million total of KRW 100 million on February 26, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “instant B amount”), the instant disposition, based on the premise that the instant amount was donated to the Plaintiff as indicated in the table under the above 1.b. 1 (b), is unlawful.

① The Plaintiff, after college graduation, was operated by the Deceased from 1995 to 1999.

from 00 industry, from 1999 to 2001, the period from 0.0 to 0.0

At the same time, the deceased mainly engaged in accounting and marketing. The deceased, as compensation for the Plaintiff’s failure to assist the deceased’s business in good faith, was managed by the deceased’s account on July 14, 199 as KRW 554-24-******, January 15, 200, KRW 554-24-*******, March 8, 2002, in the account, KRW 554-24-*****, March 8, 2002, in the name of the plaintiff, in the account, in the sum of KRW 60 million (the instant A amount) by depositing it into each account, and since the Plaintiff was unmarried and was actually operating △△△ corporation from around 201.

(2) The Deceased was using a marina account for investment purposes, and securing this.

On January 17, 2005, a deposit account needs to be transferred from the account in the name of the plaintiff (Yeong Bank 554-24-****) to the account in the name of the deceased (Yeong Bank 54-24-****).

On April 23, 2005, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea for the purpose of fishing study training, and from 2006 to 2008.

8. Until July 17, 2005, in the UK study from doctoral degree courses, and on September 30, 2005, the deceased requested to lend KRW 300 million (54-24-*****) of the Plaintiff’s deposit to the Deceased on the security deposit account of the deceased, after lending KRW 250 million to the deceased on July 12, 2006, the above deposit account was terminated and repaid the above loan and then the remainder of KRW 49,239,920 was transferred to the deceased’s account in the name of the deceased (Seoul Bank 554-21-****).

On February 26, 2009, the name of the deceased in the account under the name of the plaintiff (Yeong Bank 54-24-***)

The amount of KRW 100 million was transferred to the account (54-11-**) of △ Bank.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 600 million to the Deceased (the instant B amount).

B. Determination

In the lawsuit of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, the example of the name of the donor recognized by the tax authority.

to the extent that the bank is found to have been withdrawn and deposited in a bank account, etc. in the taxpayer’s name, such bank

To be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, the withdrawal of such deposits and deposits in the name of the taxpayer.

If there are special circumstances, such as that gold, etc. was made for any purpose other than donation, this shall not apply.

It is necessary to prove that the taxpayer has the need to prove (Supreme Court Decision 2005Du205 Decided October 26, 2006).

8139 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision)

The key amount of the instant case is the deceased’s name and the accounts in the name of ○○○.

Since the money was transferred from the Plaintiff to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff, the money was transferred in accordance with the above legal doctrine.

It is presumed that the money was given to the Plaintiff and the change is not for the purpose of donation but for the borrowed money.

It shall be proved by the plaintiff that payment was made under the pretext of No. 1, etc.

Evidence, Evidence Nos. 5, 6, 11, and Evidence Nos. 5, 6, 10, 11, and 12 mentioned above, and arguments

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of the whole, the Plaintiff submitted

The Plaintiff’s materials alone that the Plaintiff received reimbursement from the Deceased after lending money to the Deceased.

It is insufficient to admit the assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the instant disposition that deemed the instant key amount as a gift and imposed a gift tax and an inheritance tax is justifiable.

① For the amount A of this case, the Deceased’s KRW 30 million, KRW 200 million, and KRW 100 million, one year in the name of the Plaintiff.

Interest shall be deposited in the account of term deposits with maturity and only the principal shall be deposited each year.

In addition, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Director of the Regional Tax Office of 00.

The author argues that the sum of KRW 600 million was donated on January 15, 200, KRW 200 million on July 10, 2000, and KRW 600 million on March 8, 2002, but confirmed the details of the financial transaction in this case after confirming the details of the financial transaction in this case, it seems that he did not know the details, such as the time and amount deposited in the Plaintiff’s account, by claiming that he received KRW 600 million on March 8, 2002.

② The Plaintiff and the Deceased did not receive a loan on the instant B amount and the deceased.

not only did the Plaintiff pay interest but also that interest transaction from 2005 to 2009

Along with the absence of a significant amount, the Plaintiff has extended the rental content.

In addition, the action taken to secure the repayment is not known in detail, and there is a trace of the action taken to secure the repayment.

or any other evidence as to the flow of the funds with respect to the lending of the above money by the Plaintiff

I did not keep the ice data in the next place.

(3) The plaintiff asserted that the amount of this case was donated to the plaintiff, but it is so argued.

There is no return or payment of gift tax.

④ The Plaintiff secured the Deceased’s use of a marina account for investment purposes.

Even in the assertion that on January 17, 2005, the deposit account was required and borrowed KRW 200 million out of the instant B amount, the materials that the pledge was established on the deposit account (54-24-****) in the name of the deceased were not submitted.

⑤ On September 30, 2005, the Plaintiff’s term deposit in the name of the Plaintiff from △ Bank as collateral.

Of B, 250,000,000 won was loaned. On September 30, 2005, the deceased transferred 249,854,800 won out of the above loans, and 249,850,500,000 won deposited from the account in the name of Ra00,000,000,000 won, which is the deceased's children, to Kim 00,000. According to these facts, upon the expiration of the term deposit with the maturity of the time deposit in the name of the plaintiff, the above loans shall be terminated and the interest shall be 250,000,000 won and interest 10,150,680 won, and the remaining amount shall be 49,239,920 won to the deceased's account in the name of 300,000,000 won.

④ The Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million out of the instant B amount to the Deceased on February 26, 2009

However, the use of the deceased's money is unclear, and the plaintiff also uses the deceased's money.

The plaintiff has not disclosed the amount of KRW 100 million in the case of an objection against the Director of the Regional Tax Office.

The plaintiff's assertion that the deceased's loan was revoked and repaid KRW 200 million on the following day). Even based on the plaintiff's assertion, the deceased lent KRW 100 million to the deceased on February 26, 2009 and received KRW 200 million from the deceased on February 27, 2009 on the following day. Therefore, it is difficult to find no special reason for the deceased to borrow the above money from the plaintiff.

7) On April 7, 2016, the Plaintiff donated the instant issue amount at the time of the initial tax investigation.

The plaintiff submitted a certificate to acknowledge the facts (after that, the plaintiff submitted the above certificate on April 14, 2016).

a letter of misunderstanding that it is different from that signed by pressure and net mistake and that the content is different;

The confirmation is divided into the date of donation, donor, amount of gift, etc.

and specifically stated that the above certificate is enforced against the plaintiff's will, which is the originator.

evidence that has been prepared or is not prepared by the court or due to lack of its content, etc.

The value of evidence shall not be easily denied due to the absence of special circumstances, such as it is difficult to take it into account.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Du2928 delivered on May 22, 1998).

8. In full view of these circumstances, the deceased’s head of a Tong in the name of the Plaintiff whose name the deceased was an son.

In light of the above 2. A. ① (2) The deceased’s financial management by means of account transfer, deposit security loan, loan repayment, account transfer, account transfer, etc. as stated in paragraph (1) appears to have been ultimately donated to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

00 Other 1

2018.05.02

2018.05.30

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of gift tax of KRW 157,575,60 on the Plaintiff on July 1, 2016 by the former head of the ○○○ Tax Office, the head of the Cheongju District Tax Office, and the imposition of KRW 62,03,375 on the Plaintiff shall be revoked on July 2, 2016.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff's status

1) The Plaintiff is a child between ○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and ○○○.

2) On April 15, 2013, the Deceased died on April 15, 2013, and ○○○, the spouse, and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, etc. jointly inherited the deceased’s property.

B. Imposition of gift tax and inheritance tax by the Defendants

1) From January 16, 2009 to February 17, 2011, the sum of KRW 600 million (hereinafter “instant issues amount”) as indicated in the following table is deposited from the account in the name of the deceased and the account in the name of ○○○○○ bank.