Since deposit is presumed to have been donated to taxpayers, it is necessary to prove that it was made for other purpose than donation.

It is sufficient to view that the Plaintiff did not pay the borrowed loan but used the borrowed loan by transferring it to the business fund, because it was a shareholder and representative at the time of the deposit.

Articles 2 and 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2014Guhap5941 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

There is a fact that the interest of KRW 16 million has been transferred from the first account to 16 times.

The Plaintiff may receive a loan of KRW 000 in the name of the Plaintiff at 20 XX. X. X.O. O O Points

H. There was a fact that it was deposited into the first account of this case.

In other words, the fact that the Plaintiff used the first account for real estate transactions or lending money.

As long as it can be recognized, the first account of this case is held in the name of title or actually used by the Plaintiff.

It is reasonable to regard the Plaintiff’s account as the Plaintiff’s account.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff limited to 'O0' (hereinafter 'O0') for non-party corporation

(C) has been awarded a successful bid or construction of real estate (OOOO-dong OO-dong OO-dong building).

loan of 00,000,000 won by using another bank account under the name of the plaintiff

was 20 XX. from X. X. to X. 20 XX. X. from the key issue amount of the instant case to 00 x. X.

00 won transferred to the OO0 is partially repaid by the OO0 of the outstanding loan.

However, this argument argues to the effect that it is unlawful to regard it as a donation to the plaintiff.

However, as shown in the above argument, the plaintiff presented Gap evidence No. 17-23 as evidence.

있고, 이에 따르면 원고 명의의 OO계좌(XXXX-XX-XXXXXX)에 OOO0의 분양대금

The fact of such deposit and the fact that the above real estate was awarded to the OO is recognized, but this is not so.

Only the Plaintiff’s assertion that the issue amount including the above 000, was accepted by the Plaintiff

It is insufficient to reverse the presumption that the gift was given, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the facts and evidence mentioned above are written in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 and the whole pleadings.

The number of shareholders shall be the non-standing number

OO000(60%)

2003˜2005년

The same kind

OO 000 (26.67%)

OO

00 (13.33%)

Total 000 (100%)

Name and non-name and height of the period

개업일 ˜ 2003. 3. 23 OOO

Further, the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from 20 XX to 20 XX

In the event that the shares in the OO0 of this OO reach 00% (this is the following table:

[2] The plaintiff serves as the representative of O0 from 20 XX. X. X. to 20 XX. X. XX.

The plaintiff's spouse's OO is a representative of O0.

of the plaintiff's EOO as the representative of the OO0 (this title 3)

(E) The plaintiff asserts that the above KRW 000 is the repayment of the borrowed money, but means to do so.

In addition, any data is not presented as to whether the books have been processed by the OO0.

The fact that there is a corporation (O0 is a corporation, and the plaintiff was a representative of OO0 around that time, KRW 200 million.

(2) If a close large amount of transaction has been effected, such a large amount of transaction may be readily kept.

In full view of these factors, the Plaintiff is an OO0 at the time when the above KRW 000 is deposited into the OO0.

As shareholder and representative, the above KRW 000 is not a repayment by the OO but a repayment by the Plaintiff of the loan.

There is sufficient room to deem that the Plaintiff transferred the OO0’s business funds to be used. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s use is sufficient.

This part of the argument is not acceptable.

[Attachment 2]

[Attachment 3]

20XX. X. XX.˜20XX.XX. XX. OOO 원고의 이모부

20XX. X. XX.˜20XX. X. XX. OOO 원고

20XX. X. XX.˜20XX. X. XX. OOO

20XX. X. XX.˜ 현재 OOO 원고의 배우자

3) In addition, the defendant also paid 000 won to the plaintiff by OOO as expenses for a certified judicial scrivener.

Since the OO is not attributed and actually used money, it must be excluded from the gift tax base.

The defendant asserts to the effect that it should be the pre-assessment review requested by the plaintiff, but in the pre-assessment review requested by the plaintiff the plaintiff

The claim that this is the amount actually used and that the evidence of this is provided.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion was accepted and the amount of gift tax was reduced or corrected.

the first account of this case, the OO actually used the money deposited in the first account of this case

It is not sufficient to provide sufficient data to the effect that 000 won or more is added.

As above, the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

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

O Head of tax office

August 28, 2014

October 2, 2014

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 000, KRW 000, and KRW 000 against the Plaintiff shall be revoked by the former Cheong-gu branch Defendant.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고의 모 OOO(개명 전 이름 OOO)은 소외 OOO(원고의 이모부) 명의로 인천 XXX XXX-X 대지 000㎡, 근린생활시설 000㎡(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)을 소유하고 있다가, 20XX. X. XX. 소외 OOO에게 대금 00억 원에 매도하였다. 나.OO세무서장은 이 사건 부동산의 매매에 관하여 양도소득세 실지조사를 실시한 결과, 양도대금 00억 원에서 대출금과 임대차보증금을 제외한 나머지 000원(이하 '이 사건 쟁점금액'이라 한다)이 원고 명의의 XX계좌(계좌번호 XXX-XX-XXX-XXX, 이하 '이 사건 제1계좌'라 한다)로 입금된 사실(20XX.X. X. 000000원, 20XX. X. XX. 000원, 20XX. X. X. 000원)과, 이 사건 제1계좌에서 20XX. X. XX. 000원이 원고 명의의 다른 OO계좌(계좌번호 XXX-XXX-XXXXXX, 이하 '이 사건 제2계좌'라 하고, 이 사건 제1계좌와 합쳐서 '이 사건 각 계좌'라 한다)로 이체된 사실을 피고에게 통보하였다.다. 피고는 위 통보를 바탕으로 20XX. X. XX.부터 20XX. X. X.까지 원고에 대한 증여세 조사를 실시하여 원고의 이 사건 제1계좌로 입금된 위 000원을 OOO이 원고에게 증여한 금원으로 판단하여, 원고에게 증여세 총 000원(20XX. X. X. 증여분 000원, 20XX. X. XX. 증여분 000원, 20XX. X. X. 증여분 000원)을 과세하겠다는 과세예고통지를 하였고, 원고는 이에 대하여 2013. 5. 6. 과세전적 부심사청구를 하였다.

AOOO of the initial receipt date

Amount of actual use B. Amount of increase in B.D.

C(=A-B) 20 XX. X. X. 000,000 000,0000 000,0000,000 20 XX. X. 000,000 000,000 20,000 X. X. 200,000 total 00,000,0000,0000,000

D. Upon examining the Plaintiff’s claim for pre-assessment review, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff’s claim was partially reasonable; (b) rendered a decision to correct the Plaintiff’s claim to KRW 000 ( KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with this and filed a request for 20 XX. XX. However, upon dismissal of X. XX., the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit under X. XX. 20 XX.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6, entry of Eul evidence 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The first account in this case is only the name of the Plaintiff, and its actual employee is an OO. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff failed to disclose daily the place of use used in the first account in this case, deeming it as a gift and imposing tax on it is unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of gift tax imposition, as long as the deposit in the name of the person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account under 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, etc., it is necessary to prove it to the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). In light of the above legal principles, the fact that the issue amount of this case was transferred to the first account in the Plaintiff’s name is identical to that of the Plaintiff, and thus, it is presumed to be a gift. The Plaintiff presented evidence that only the name of the first account was made in the Plaintiff’s name and that the fact was consistent with the OO’s account, but each of the above entries alone was insufficient to reverse the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the issue and the purport of the entire evidence as above.

The Plaintiff purchased an OOOO-dong OO-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong 20 XX. X. X. O-dong O-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-dong o-ship 1 to transfer 0 million won interest from the Account of this case from