Suwon District Court 2008Guhap12024 ( November 04, 2009)

National High Court Decision 2007Du5253 ( October 01, 2008)

Presumption of Donation of the acquisition fund of real estate

It is difficult to see that apartment is acquired by itself in view of occupation, income, property conditions, etc., and each apartment house acquisition price is presumed to have been donated by a able spouse.

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. The disposition of imposition of KRW 61,040,00 for the gift tax of KRW 61,040,00 for the Plaintiff on September 6, 2007 and KRW 75,796,070 for the gift tax of KRW 200 for the year 204 shall be revoked.

The reason for the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited as the reason for this judgment in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil

In the appellate court of this case, the plaintiff asserts that prior to the acquisition of each apartment of this case, the plaintiff had the apartment of this case 1.16,828,963 won and the previous earned income of the plaintiff 1.16,828,963 won and the previous earned income of the plaintiff 1.16,828,963 won, BB Dong 1850 AA apartment 106,500, 502 transfer price of the plaintiff 1.9,000 won, which were owned by the plaintiff, the presumption of donation should be reversed. In addition, in acquiring the 3,4 apartment of this case, the lease deposit of the 2 apartment of this case and the deposit of the 4,000,000 won of the lease deposit of the 4,000,000 won and the deposit of the 4,000 won of the apartment of this case should be deducted from the donation amount.

However, the ground for appeal by the plaintiff is merely to criticize the judgment of the court that rejected the claim again made in the first instance court, and even after further review of all the submitted evidence, there is no objective evidence, such as the price for disposal of earned income and the previous real estate property, loan, deposit for deposit on deposit, etc., or financial data that can recognize that the funds were used as the acquisition fund of each apartment in this case. Thus, the above argument cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.