Cho High-depth 201Gu0667 ( December 08, 2011)

It shall be deemed that the transfer price of real estate is paid and used, and the donation shall be applicable.

In special circumstances, such as withdrawal of deposits and deposits, etc. in the name of a taxpayer are conducted for purposes other than donation, the burden of proof is the taxpayer, and the plaintiff continues to use the real estate transfer proceeds for living expenses, credit card payments, etc. freely as necessary after depositing them into the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name.

2012Guhap302 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

IsaA

Head of Dong Daegu Tax Office

May 16, 2012

June 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The imposition of each of the gift tax of KRW 00, gift tax of KRW 000, and gift tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on December 1, 2010 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On April 9, 2009, the Plaintiff was delegated by the Plaintiff’s fatherB residing in the U.S. and deposited the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name on September 29, 2009, with the Plaintiff’s OB-dong 000 to 295.4 square meters (hereinafter “1 real estate”) on September 18, 2009, and sold the first real estate to Nonparty and one other on September 18, 2009, with the payment of KRW 000 as the down payment on the same day. The Plaintiff deposited the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name on September 21, 2009, and paid KRW 00 as the intermediate payment on September 28, 2009, and deposited the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name on September 29, 200, with the remainder payment of KRW 000 on October 14, 2009.

B. On April 9, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a compensation agreement with the Daegu Metropolitan City on April 14, 2010 with respect to the second real estate, and deposited 00 won in the Plaintiff’s name on April 23, 2010 after receiving 00,000 to 147.8 square meters (hereinafter “2 real estate”) owned by this B B, which was incorporated into the project district for the Madraton course of the World Organization (LAF) and the project district for the construction of the World Organization.

C. On August 2010, the commissioner of the Daegu Regional Tax Office notified the Defendant that the transfer price of real estate No. 1 was KRW 000 and KRW 000 for compensation for losses on real estate No. 2 was deposited into the Plaintiff’s account for several times, and that the Plaintiff used it as a living fund for a long time on several occasions. On December 1, 2010, the Defendant: (a) recognized that the Plaintiff donated KRW 000 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “transfer amount”) calculated by subtracting the transfer income tax and the resident tax paid from the total amount of the transfer price of real estate No. 1 and compensation for losses on real estate No. 2 from KRW 00,000 (including KRW 25,00,000,000) donated on September 29, 200; and (b) disposed of the gift tax of KRW 400 on KRW 300,000 (including KRW 400,000) donated on September 21, 2009.

D. The Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on February 17, 2011, but was dismissed on December 8, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 1 to 3-2, and Eul evidence 1 to 1 to 3-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

This case’s disposition is unlawful since B delegated the custody and management of the transfer amount to the Plaintiff, and under the name of the financial real name, B was unable to open a deposit in its name without entering the Republic of Korea. Thus, it was inevitably managed by distributed deposit to the term deposit and the securities account in the Plaintiff’s name, and it did not receive any gift. Of the transfer amount of this case’s disposition, the disposition of this case’s disposition is unlawful. In particular, since the remainder of KRW 00 (00 among the transfer proceeds of real estate 1 + 000 out of the transfer proceeds of real estate 1 + 000 out of the transfer proceeds of real estate 2) is managed separately from the Plaintiff’s existing deposit and management, it cannot be viewed as a gift.

3. Related statutes;

Attached 1 is as stated in the "related Acts and subordinate statutes".

4. Determination

A. Under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality"), where a contract for a deposit is entered into through a real name verification procedure and the fact of the contract is clearly stated in the real name verification statement, etc., it would be reasonable to interpret that the deposit title holder, the person under whose name the deposit is the deposit owner, or the person acting for him/her, intends to appoint the deposit title holder as the party to the contract, and to clarify the legal relationship as to the party to the deposit contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Da45828, Mar. 19, 2009). If, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax imposition, the deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and if there are special circumstances, such as the withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit under the name of the taxpayer, etc., other than donations, the burden of proof is imposed on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du45828, Apr. 19, 20197).

B. In full view of the facts acknowledged earlier and the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of each entry in evidence Nos. 2 through 5-3 and the entire arguments, it shall be deemed that the transferred amount of this case was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name, and that the Plaintiff, the nominal owner of the account, obtained all the rights to the deposit, and that the entries in the evidence No. 5 through No. 6-4 alone are insufficient to recognize that the transfer amount of this case was managed and disposed by the Plaintiff’s account using the Plaintiff’s account, and that the Plaintiff received the transfer amount of this case from the Plaintiff, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(1) Under the real name verification system, when the Korean resident submitted a copy of the real name verification certificate, the real name verification card of his/her agent, and his/her power of attorney, and a certificate of personal seal, an agent in the Republic of Korea may open a deposit account in the domestic financial institution with the name of the overseas resident himself/herself, and where the overseas resident himself/herself may open an account at the domestic store of the same financial institution using the overseas store of the financial institution, and where the domestic means of payment acquired in the Republic of Korea are deposited, it is also possible for the Korean resident to open a deposit account at the domestic store of the same financial institution. Therefore, the plaintiff or the BB

(2) A financial institution shall keep the transferred amount of the instant case in combination with the existing amount of deposit or additional amount of deposit after deposit into the Plaintiff’s account, and the Plaintiff cannot request the financial institution to pay the transferred amount separately.

(3) The instant transfer amount was deposited in the account under the Plaintiff’s name, such as “the flow chart of the transfer price of real estate 1” and “the flow chart of the purchase price of real estate 2-2” of [Attachment 2-1] and [Attachment 2-2], and continued to be deposited and managed in the Plaintiff’s name, and was distributed and managed in the Plaintiff’s term deposit, securities account, etc., and the Plaintiff freely released and consumed KRW 000 as required, and card price

5. Conclusion

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