The early 208 Before 1426

Where there is a difference between the person paying premiums and the person receiving insurance proceeds,

Even if there is a difference between the person paying the insurance premium and the person receiving the insurance money, the insurance money shall not be deemed a donation where it actually belongs to the person paying the insurance

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 4,037,185,810 against the Plaintiff on January 10, 2008 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a)The plaintiff concluded a long-term savings insurance contract with the following table between November 1, 200 and December 30, 2000:

B. The Plaintiff paid all the premium of each of the above insurance contracts with the husband’s funds in lump sum, and received each insurance premium specified in the above table (hereinafter “instant insurance premium”) from each of the above insurance companies on the day of maturity due to the maturity stipulated in each of the above insurance contracts.

C. Since August 2007, the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation into the source of funds for the insurance proceeds of this case from around August, 2007, and notified the Defendant of the imposition of KRW 6,968,80,000 of the insurance proceeds of this case on October 29 of the same year by deeming that the payer of the insurance proceeds of this case and the payer of the insurance proceeds of this case are different cases. The Defendant imposed KRW 4,037,185,810 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 10; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") as follows pursuant to Article 34(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 10, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case").

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on April 8, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal did not make a decision on the appeal by the date of closing argument of the instant case.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 6, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 8-1.2, Eul evidence 1-1 through 6, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 5-1 through 8, Eul evidence 21, 22, Eul evidence 23-1, 23-2, Eul evidence 24-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Since the instant insurance contract was in the form of an insurance contract, but its substance is a deposit, Article 34(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied.

2) The instant insurance money is substantially reverted to AA, which is the Plaintiff’s husband, and thus, falls under the case where the beneficiary of the insurance and the beneficiary of the insurance are the same, and thus, the instant disposition against which gift tax was imposed by applying Article 34(1) of the former Inheritance and Gift Tax

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Article 34(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where there is a difference between the beneficiary of the insurance money and the payer of the insurance money in case of life insurance or non-life insurance, the amount of the insurance money shall be deemed the value of the donated

2) Determination as to the assertion that the instant insurance contract is not "life insurance" under Article 134 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the argument in the evidence evidence No. 19 of this case, the insurance contract of this case is acknowledged that the name of the product is "non-dividend dividends," "non-dividend dividends," "non-payment dividends," and "new savings life mutual aid", and the insured and the beneficiary are determined as the insured, and the insurance contract of this case is defined as an insurance accident for the maturity, death, and physical disability which are payable for the reason of receiving the insurance money. Accordingly, according to the above facts of recognition, all of the insurance contracts of this case are considered as life insurance. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit

(iii)the meaning of "the addressee of the insurance money" under Article 34 (1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act;

Article 34(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that where the payer of the premium and the beneficiary of the insurance are different from the beneficiary of the insurance money, the amount of the insurance money shall be the beneficiary of the insurance money. In such a case, it is not deemed that the beneficiary of the insurance money in the name of the beneficiary of the insurance money is a donation from the payer of the insurance money. Thus, if the beneficiary of the non-life insurance is a beneficiary of the non-life insurance, and is in the status of receiving the insurance money, it does not constitute "the beneficiary of the insurance money" under Article 34(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to regard the actual payee of the insurance money as the beneficiary of the non-life insurance, as the beneficiary of the non-life insurance is the beneficiary of the insurance money, so long as the policyholder liable to pay the insurance money, not the policyholder, but the actual payer of the insurance money, in the application of the above provision, is recognized as the beneficiary of the insurance money.

iv)whether the plaintiff can be considered as the actual owner of the insurance proceeds

The payment of the insurance premium under the insurance contract of this case is without dispute between the parties. It is a question whether the beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case is the case where the beneficiary of the insurance premium of this case is different from the beneficiary of the insurance premium of this case.

(a)a fact of recognition;

(1) AA, who was born in 1968, divorced with his spouse before October 9, 1998, and re-born with the Plaintiff on October 30, 1999. BB was produced on September 15, 200 between the Plaintiff, on February 12, 2003, and on October 28, 2004.

(2) Since 1994, AA had been working for a securities company as a stock investment adviser in the year of 200, and had been aware of 5.5 billion won as a stock investment adviser only for one year since 2000. The said income of AA was used as the insurance premium of the instant insurance contract.

(3) When entering into the instant insurance contract in the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered the contractor’s address in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s parent’s address other than the Plaintiff’s domicile. After entering into the instant insurance contract, Ansan visited the Plaintiff and applied for the protection of financial information.

(4) The Plaintiff received the instant insurance proceeds from the insurer as the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract on the date of maturity between November 1, 2005 and December 30, 2005.

(5) From November 3, 2005 to April 2006, the Plaintiff and Ansan concluded a new insurance contract, etc. with the Plaintiff or Ansan as the insured and beneficiary, and paid an amount equivalent to KRW 7,000,000,000 with the relevant insurance premium, etc.

(6) The AA opened a share account under the name of the Plaintiff and traded shares, and made credit card payments from the account under the name of the Plaintiff, and made transactions through the bank account under the name of the Plaintiff in daily life.

[Identification] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 through 5, Gap evidence 6-1.2, Gap evidence 7-1.2, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 10 through 12, Gap evidence 13-1 through 10, Gap evidence 14-2, Gap evidence 15-1 through 5, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 17-1, 2, Gap evidence 18, 23, 24, Gap evidence 25-1 through 3, Gap evidence 26-1 through 6, Gap evidence 27 through 29, Gap evidence 31-1 through 33, Gap evidence 33 through 38, Gap evidence 15-1 through 5, Gap evidence 16-1 through 4, Gap evidence 27-2, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 4-2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 37-4, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 1 through 4-2, evidence 7

B)Judgment

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the above facts, i.e., payment of insurance premium and the beneficiary of the insurance contract of this case to the Plaintiff for the long time when the 2000-year 200-year 200-year 2000-year 2000-year 2000-year 200-year 200-year 2000 200-year 2000 20-year 2000 200-year 2000 200-year 2006 20-year 2006 20-year 2006).

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the beneficiary of insurance money is illegal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the cancellation of the disposition of this case.