It can not be viewed as a donation because it constitutes repayment of indemnity claim due to subrogation.

The fact that a person to whom a loan claim was acquired has been remitted as a repayment on behalf of the debtor, and the fact that the loan was appropriated as the above sales amount pursuant to an agreement or delegation with the plaintiff can be acknowledged, and the above money is deemed as a repayment of the claim for indemnity due to subrogation, but the argument that the above money was repaid as the sales amount is without merit.

2012Guhap39025 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

July 26, 2013

September 27, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax on April 1, 2012 by an OOOO on the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/5 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax OOO on April 1, 2012 (=OOOO on September 30, 2009 + OOOOOO on November 2, 2009) is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On behalf of the ASEAN KimB, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on August 22, 2009 for the sale of OOB-dong 51 EEMOOOOB (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) on behalf of the ASEAN, the buyer succeeded to the obligation to refund the deposit to the lessee of the apartment of this case at the time of the signing of the contract for the sale of OOB-dong 51 EEMOOOB (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff received the remainder of the purchase price excluding the above security deposit from the buyer as a check or deposited into its own account as follows.

- OOOO(checks) on August 22, 2009

- OOO(Account) on August 24, 2009

- OOO(Account) on September 30, 2009

- OOOO(checks) on November 2, 2009

C. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted a tracking investigation on the use of the instant apartment house’s transfer proceeds and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff received the above OOOE from KimB. On April 1, 2012, the Defendant imposed the gift tax on the Plaintiff on August 24, 2009, the OOOOE, the donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation donation gift amount, and the OOEE on November 2, 2009.

D. Since then, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office accepted the plaintiff's explanation that the plaintiff paid, in lieu of KimB, the former lease deposit amount of the apartment of this case, the plaintiff paid for KimB as the purchase price of this case, or appropriated it as the above payment, and notified the defendant of the original donation amount after changing the OOO on behalf of the plaintiff. In accordance with the above notification, the defendant notified the plaintiff of the correction and notification of the gift tax of the gift amount of September 30, 2009 and the gift tax of the gift of this case of November 2, 2009 by reducing the initial gift tax on September 30, 2009 and the gift amount of the OOO on November 1, 2012 (hereinafter "the remaining part of the disposition of this case").

E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 10, 2012, but the said claim was dismissed on November 7, 2012.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In accordance with the delegation by KimB, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have donated the money appropriated for the instant purchase price under the following names:

○○ KimB repaid the OOB on behalf of the Plaintiff out of the money borrowed from KimF before towing, but the amount equivalent to the said money was appropriated as the instant purchase price to receive the payment.

On April 5, 2009, the Plaintiff’s wife and the mother of KimB (hereinafter referred to as “ deceased KimGG”) died on April 5, 2009. The Plaintiff spent on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is obligated to support the deceased Kim GG’s hospital expenses, drug value, nursing expenses, and incidental expenses, OOG’s total OOG expenses and funeral expenses, and appropriated them as the sales price of the instant case.

○ The Plaintiff lent KimB’s study expenses to KimB, and appropriated them as the sales amount of the instant case.

B. Determination

(1) Since the sales price of a real estate owned by a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is attributed to a donor who is the owner, if the donor sold real estate and received the sales price is not deposited to the donor who is the seller, but deposited into a deposit account in the name of the taxpayer so that the taxpayer can easily withdraw and dispose of the deposit, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there are special circumstances, such as that the deposit in the name of the taxpayer was made for other purpose than a gift, the burden of proof is borne by the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, we examine whether each item alleged by the Plaintiff was proved of the aforementioned special circumstances.

(A) OF-related OOO

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 10 and the testimony of KimF, KimB borrowed OB from the previous Kim H to the purport of the entire pleadings. The plaintiff transferred the above loan claims from KimF on November 28, 2008 to KimF who received the above loan claims from Kim HH on behalf of KimB on behalf of the plaintiff KimB, and the plaintiff can recognize the fact that the above money was appropriated for the above purchase price pursuant to an agreement or delegation with KimB. Accordingly, the above money should not be deemed as a donation, and it should be deducted from the donated property, and the plaintiff's assertion pointing this out has merit.

(B) Expenses relating to net KimG

In full view of the statements in evidence Nos. 8 and 14 and the testimony of the witness II, the deceased KimG died on April 5, 2009 when receiving an extract cancer diagnosis around April 2008, and the plaintiff was under economic circumstances that make it difficult for the deceased to bear medical expenses, etc. for cancer treatment of the deceased KimG, but the apartment of this case was set up as a material around April 2008, while the real estate market was not traded, the plaintiff's obligation to support the above money was not fulfilled within the scope of the deceased KimG's medical expenses, the weak value, and the funeral expenses OBO (the plaintiff's assertion that the above money was paid or the nursing expenses was paid in excess of the above amount cannot be accepted). Accordingly, the plaintiff's duty to support the above money was not satisfied within the scope of the plaintiff's duty to support the plaintiff's 4G or the above OBG's duty to use the money as the sale price of the deceased KimB's gift property under the agreement with the above KimB.

(C) Expenses related to study.

With respect to the assertion that the loans for study expenses were paid in the purchase price of this case, it is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff lent the loans for study expenses to KimB only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 9 and 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit without any further review.

(d)other costs and costs.

There is no other evidence to prove that there are special circumstances to deem the sales price of this case as not a donation.

Thus, in the taxable value of the gift tax, which is the premise for the disposition of the instant case, the amount of OOO (=OOO + OOO) should be additionally deducted.

(3) Justifiable tax amount

If the gift tax is calculated by deducting the above OOO from the taxable value of the gift made on September 30, 2009 prior to the date of donation, the total determined tax amount shall be the OOO member as follows:

○ Details of calculation of gift tax on the donation made on September 30, 2009

- Gift tax base: OOO(i.e., initial tax base -OOO -OOO )

- Calculated tax amount: OOO(=OOO director 】 tax rate of 10%)

- The aggregate amount of false report: OOOO

- Additional tax for unfaithful: OOO

- Total amount of assessment: OOO(=OOOwon + OOOOwon + OOOO won)

Therefore, the legitimate gift tax in this case is a gift tax OOO(TOOs less than 10 won pursuant to Article 47(1) of the National Funds Management Act) and OOOs in total (=OOs +OOs) on November 2, 2009. Therefore, the exceeding part of the disposition in this case is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.