Seocho 2017west 4568 ( October 25, 2018)

Deposits in the name of a person recognized as a donor are withdrawn and are found to have been deposited in a bank account, etc. in the name of a taxpayer, such deposits shall be presumed to have been donated

As long as the deposit in the name of a donor is withdrawn and the deposit is revealed to have been made in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as the purpose other than the donation, there is a need to prove it to the taxpayer.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Gift Tax Taxables)

2018Guhap7208 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

MaO

O Head of tax office

March 15, 2019

April 12, 2019

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 000 (including additional tax) of the gift tax on January 23, 2006 to the Plaintiff on June 14, 2017 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who is a citizen of the Australia who is living in Australia, and J is the father and the mother of the plaintiff.

B. On January 24, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired OOO(hereinafter “instant real estate”) from OOO(OO) through the auction procedure.

C. On January 1, 2001, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the place of acquisition of real estate in Korea and Australia, which the Plaintiff acquired from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 201, and the Plaintiff received from the J account on January 23, 2006 to the Plaintiff’s account **** (hereinafter “the instant money”) as a donation, and on June 14, 2017, the Defendant determined and notified the Plaintiff on January 14, 2006 (i.e., KRW O for principal tax + KRW O for additional tax + KRW O for additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

P, the Plaintiff’s mother P transferred to the Plaintiff the claim that the Plaintiff owned with her husband J in order to repay the Plaintiff’s debt to the Plaintiff, and the J repaid the Plaintiff with the debt equivalent to the instant monetary amount. As such, the payment of the instant monetary amount to the Plaintiff does not constitute a donation to the Plaintiff.

3. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax imposition, insofar as the deposit in the name of a donor, which is recognized as a donor by the tax authority, is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of the taxpayer, 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 name of the taxpayer, etc., it is necessary to prove such fact to the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

B. J paid the instant money to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff on January 23, 2006, and on January 24, 2006, the Plaintiff paid the instant money to the Plaintiff as the successful bid price in the auction procedure regarding the instant real estate on January 24, 2006, the following day.

Meanwhile, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire argument in Eul evidence No. 6, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant money was withdrawn from the J’s account on January 23, 2016 and deposited into the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name was donated to the Plaintiff. The data submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit in the Plaintiff’s name was made for any other purpose than donation. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① As of the end of 2005, the Plaintiff asserts that as of the end of 2005, the Plaintiff should be deemed to have lent to P the amount calculated by subtracting the total sum of the amounts paid to P from the total sum of the amounts paid to P.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff was the mother of P; (b) the Plaintiff gave and received very frequent money from P to 2000 to 2007; and (c) there are no evidentiary materials as to what circumstances the financial transaction between the Plaintiff and P was conducted during the said period; and (c) there is no instrument of disposal, such as a loan certificate, etc. between the Plaintiff and P, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s amount calculated on the basis of a specific point

② In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of money KRW **** is paid from P to receive the successful bid of the instant real estate, and that J had a debt corresponding to the above amount to J P P. However, in full view of the fact that the parties to the relationship between J and P and the parties to the relationship between J and P, and no other disposal documents, such as loan certificates, exist, etc., it is difficult to view that even if the Plaintiff paid the instant real estate to PJ as the successful bid price of the instant real estate, it is difficult to deem that the above amount

③ Even if there were, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the P’s obligation to the Plaintiff and the obligation to provide a loan to the P P against the Plaintiff, it is difficult to find out any ground for the J to transfer to the Plaintiff the claims held by the P husband J against the Plaintiff in order to repay the obligation to the Plaintiff, and to find out any reason for the PJ to repay the said obligation to the Plaintiff.

5. Conclusion

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