Seoul Administrative Court 2013Guhap2334 ( October 24, 2013)

It is not sufficient to recognize as part of the money borrowed from the deceased.

As long as it has been revealed that the key money source was deposited in the bank account in the name of the plaintiff among the real estate transfer proceeds owned by the deceased, the key money source is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiff. The evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the key money source was part of the money borrowed from

2013Nu30508 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2013Guhap2334 decided October 24, 2013

November 7, 2014

November 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On December 5, 201, the defendant revoked each disposition of the gift tax OOO or OOO of gift tax against the plaintiff on December 5, 201.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(1) Part 2, Chapter 18, a plaintiff shall add "(1)" in front of "the plaintiff."

② On the 3rd page, “(2) The Defendant imposed only some of the funds borrowed from the Deceased, and did not impose taxes on the remainder, and even the Plaintiff did not impose taxes on the funds repaid to the Deceased, this would be in violation of the principle of tax equality.”

(3) On the face of the sixth, "Gift of gift tax" shall be added in the front of "disposition of gift tax imposition".

④ As seen earlier, the instant disposition is lawful inasmuch as the instant amount is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff and the taxation requirements are met after the instant amount was presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff, and the instant disposition cannot be deemed to contravene the principle of tax equality solely on the grounds alleged by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

2. Conclusion

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