Appellate 2012 Schedule 2271 (Law No. 112, 2012)

It is legitimate that the presumption of donation was made on the ground that the source of land acquisition fund is unclear.

In light of the fact that the father concludes a sales contract and receives the payment from the donor for the purchase and sale of land, and that the purchaser stated that he/she did not know his/her father, his/her father, who is a registered titleholder, was presumed to have donated the land acquisition fund to his/her

2012Revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, 4983

South AA

Head of the tax office

March 28, 2013

May 9, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on August 28, 2012 is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

가. 원고의 딸인 남BB은 2005. 7. 14. 이CC으로부터 김해시 상동면 OO리 00000 전 5，129㎡(이하 '이 사건 토지'라고 한다)를 000원에 매수하여 그 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 후 2005. 8. 22. 상동농업협동조합으로부터 000원을 차용하면서 이 사건 토지에 채권최고액 000원의 근저당권설정등기를 마쳐주었고， 2005. 11. 21. 이 사건 토지를 김해시 상동 OOO리 0000 전 1，244㎡， 같은 리 0000 전 1，323㎡， 같은 리 0000 전 2，562㎡로 각 분할하여 분할등기를 마쳤다.

B. On November 24, 2005, SouthB sold the above OO 00-61 1,323 square meters to NewD on November 24, 2005, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of NewD on December 1, 2005, on January 27, 2006, and reported the tax base of capital gains tax at KRW 000 and KRW 0000.

C. On June 7, 2010, Korea acquired through consultation from SouthB the above OO 000 square meters prior to 1,244 square meters and Ri 000-000 square meters prior to 2,562 square meters prior to 200-00 square meters, and paid 0000 won to SouthB as the purchase price, while SouthB reported the transfer price on August 30, 2010 with 000 won and the acquisition price at 000 won (+000 won + 000 won) with respect to the acquisition of the instant land, Korea submitted a sales contract (Evidence 4) in which the purchase price is 00 won in relation to the acquisition of the instant land.

D. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant: (a) determined the tax base to be donated by the Plaintiff after deducting KRW 000,000 from the debt secured by the above collateral security among the purchase price of the instant land, and imposed gift tax of KRW 000 on SouthB; (b) on March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff was designated as a person jointly liable for tax payment; and (c) imposed gift tax of KRW 000 ( KRW 000 + additional 0000) on the Plaintiff.

E. On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed to the Tax Tribunal and filed a request for a trial on April 26, 2012, the remainingB purchased the instant real estate in 000 won, asserting that the Plaintiff did not have donated the said purchase price, and the Plaintiff submitted a sales contract (Evidence A No. 3) stating that the purchase price was 00 won, and the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to re-examine the acquisition price of the instant land while recognizing the fact of the Plaintiff’s donation on July 20, 2012 to correct the relevant tax base and tax amount.

F. Accordingly, on August 22, 2012, the head of the Kimhae Tax Office, having jurisdiction over the location of the instant land, determined the acquisition value of the instant land of SouthB as KRW 000, and decided to revise the tax base of the instant land as KRW 000 (acquisition value - KRW 000 - KRW 000 on the collateral security - the credit for lineal ascendants and descendants - KRW 000 on the collateral security - the credit for lineal ascendants and descendants ) and notified the Defendant thereof. On August 28, 2012, the Defendant imposed a gift tax of KRW 00 (this tax + KRW 000 on the Plaintiff + additional 000) on the Plaintiff on February 14, 2013, imposed a gift tax of KRW 00 on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5-3, Eul evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 13, evidence 14, evidence 27, and evidence 30-1 and 30-2, and the whole purport of the testimony and arguments of this witnessCC, and the whole purport of the arguments

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land in this case was purchased between SouthB and DaD, and the remaining BB of the purchase price was 000 won and 000 won respectively, and the remaining B of the purchase price was 000 won and 000 won, and the remaining 00 won was 00 won loaned from the ordinary agricultural cooperative, and the remaining 00 won was paid directly through the private teaching institute instructors, the extracurricular, and the shopping mall operation. Accordingly, the plaintiff did not have donated the purchase price of the land to SouthB, so the disposition in this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On November 27, 1984, the Plaintiff started and operated a dental laboratory in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, 1988. On September 22, 1988, the Plaintiff closed and operated a real estate real estate agent office in Busan-gu on September 18, 2002. On January 10, 2007, and again, the Plaintiff opened the real estate agent office in Busan-gu from July 18, 2012 to now.

2) SouthB had income of 00 won in 2003 (total revenue of 000 won - necessary expenses) and 000 won in 2004 (total revenue of 000 won - necessary expenses) as personal service business income.

3) On March 1, 2005, SouthB opened an electronic commerce business in the Geum-gu Busan District Government OOOdong on December 31, 2005, but closed its business on December 31, 2005, and the value-added tax on this was not reported (However, on the basis of 000 won of the amount notified as a person who reported value-added tax in 2005, the global income tax was notified 000 won by calculating the global income amount as simple expense rate based on the amount of 000 won of the amount of income notified as a person who reported

[Based on Recognition] Eul evidence 1 to 11, evidence 18 to 20, and evidence 22-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that the remaining 0B income of the Plaintiff is presumed to have been donated to the purchaser of the property when it is difficult to recognize that the remaining 0B income had been acquired with 00,000 won, and that the remaining 20,000 won would have been donated to the Plaintiff. This provision provides that, in principle, the acquisition of the property would be deemed to have been donated to the purchaser of the property, and that the tax authorities would have had considerable financial support for the acquisition of the property, and that the remaining 0,000 won would not be deemed to have been donated to the other person unless there are special circumstances. This provision provides that the remaining 0,000 won would not be deemed to have been donated to the Plaintiff, and that the remaining 20,000 won would not have any financial support for the acquisition of the property, and that there would be 0,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000 won for 20,000.

3. Conclusion

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