early 2012west0925 (201.05.03)

Money deposited from the account is presumed to be a prior donation.

Although it is argued that the money deposited in the company was used as the automobile price purchased for the joint use, it is not a prior donation, considering the fact that the automobile was acquired in the register of automobiles, it is not sufficient to recognize that the automobile was purchased for the joint use with the decedent only, and the tax assessment assessed as a prior donation

2012Guhap2530 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing inheritance tax

Maximum number of passengers;

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

January 9, 2013

February 1, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition disposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax) against the Plaintiff on November 4, 201, which exceeds KRW 000,000, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On August 11, 2006, KRW 000, KRW 000 on August 18, 2006, and KRW 000 on May 25, 2007, and KRW 000 on October 18, 2007, one cashier’s checks issued at the face value of KRW 000 on the account of Kim EE in the name of KimE.

B. MaximumD was killed on November 17, 2009, and Kim E-E died on November 20, 2010, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the property.

C. On November 4, 2011, the Defendant: (a) on the Plaintiff, “The most DD has donated 000 won to KimE (=00 won +00 won +000 won + 000 won, and hereinafter referred to as “the dispute amount”); and (b) determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 00 of the inheritance tax (including additional tax) by adding it to the inherited property value (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal on February 8, 2012, but received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on May 3, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap, Eul, Eul, Eul, and 1 to 4, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key amount is that the money deposited in the account of the maximum DD and KimE (the money deposited in the account of the GimE is used as household expenses, sunyang, etc., and the money deposited in the non-party company in the name of KimE is the HH car price purchased for joint use) and the cost of living should not be added to the value of inherited property. Therefore, the part of the instant disposition that was made on the premise that the key amount was donated in advance is illegal.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) As long as it is revealed that a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax is filed, and that a deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is withdrawn and deposited in a bank account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name are made for purposes other than donation (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). In addition, even if the source of money disbursed in the taxpayer’s name is revealed to be a donor by the tax authority, such money is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.

(2) 이 사건으로 돌아와 보건대， 쟁점금액 중 김EE의 계좌에 입금된 돈과 김EE 명의로 소외 회사에 지급된 돈은 최DDD의 계좌에서 인출되었으므로，쟁점금액은 위 법리에 따라 사전증여된 것으로 추정된다. 이에 대하여 원고는 "쟁점금액이 생활비로 사용되었다"고 주장하면서 이에 부합하는 증거로 갑 제3 내지 7호증을 제출하였다. 그러나 ① 사실확인서 및 근로계약서(갑 제3， 4， 6， 8호증)에 관하여; 김EE의 계좌에 입금된 돈의 처분내역을 객관적으로 확인할 수 있는 자료가 부족한 점， 김EE은 II택시여객자동차 주식회사로부터 지급받는 현금소득이 있었던 점(을 제3， 4호 증)， 김EE은 현금소득을 계좌로 입금받지 않았는데， 쟁점금액만 계좌로 입금받은 점 등을 고려할 때， 원고가 제출한 사실확인서 및 근로계약서만으로 쟁점금액 중 김EE 의 계좌에 입금된 돈이 생활비로 사용되었음을 인정하기 부족하고，② 자동차등록원부 (갑 제7호증)에 관하여; 김EE이 소외 회사로부터 HHH 자동차를 구입할 당시 최QQ은 OO 자동차를 소유하고 있었던 점(을 제2， 4， 5호증)， 최DDD은 2009. 4.경 OOOO 자동차를， 김EE은 2009. 11.경 OOOO 자동차를 각자 취득한 점(갑 제7호증， 을 제4호증) 등을 고려할 때， 자동차등록원부만으로 최DDD과 김EE이 공동사용하기 위하여 HHH 자동차를 구입하였음을 인정하기 부족하고， 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로，원고의 주장은 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

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