Since the payment was made with the purchase price, it is presumed that the donation was received in advance.

Even in cases where the source of money paid in the taxpayer’s name is revealed to be a donor by the tax authority, such money is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, or there is no evidence that the Plaintiff received the money for the transfer of land or the compensation for expropriation, and thus, it is presumed to have been donated in advance.

2012Guhap41035 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing inheritance tax, etc.

1.A 2.B

head of Dongjak-gu Tax Office

April 3, 2013

May 3, 2013

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

On December 1, 2011, the Defendant revoked each imposition of the inheritance tax OOOOO(including additional taxes), OOOOO(including additional taxes), NA, and NAD against the Plaintiff HanB, OOOOO(including additional taxes), and OOOO(including additional taxes, OOOOO(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(

1. Details of the disposition;

A. (1) On June 19, 2002, Plaintiff Lee Dong-A purchased OO-dong O-dong 355-637 land and its ground buildings (hereinafter referred to as "real estate 1") from OO-ship and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on August 27, 2002.

(2) The Han FF, the spouse of the Plaintiff AA, paid the OOF amount out of the purchase price (the Defendant deemed the OO amount, but reduced the OO amount as seen thereafter).

B. (1) On December 23, 2005, Plaintiff HanB purchased OB-dong OB-dong 100-17 land and its ground buildings (hereinafter “OB-dong 100-17 real estate”) from thisG from OG, and the contract was concluded between OB-house and OB-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-backed.

(2) The HanF, who is the father of the Plaintiff HanB, withdrawn from its own account and paid OOE out of the purchase price on January 19, 2006, the OOOE on April 18, 2006, the OOE on the collateral security obligation of collateral security, and the OOE out of the purchase price on April 19, 2006.

C. The FF died on December 30, 2009, and the Plaintiffs, HanCC, HanD, and Han E inherited the property. The inheritance ratio of the heir of HanF and the inheritance value of the heir are as listed below.

An inheritor

Legal shares in inheritance

The value of statutory inherited property

Actual shares in inheritance

The actual value of inherited property

IsaA

1.5/5.5

OOOE

0.0467%

OOOE

IB

Each 1/5.5

Each OOOOO

0.089%

OOOE

Korea-CC

0.2142%

OOOE

D

0.2142%

OOOE

E

0.5157%

OOOE

D. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant received advance donation from HanF, from the Plaintiff, from the OE on August 27, 2002, from the Plaintiff HanB, from the OOE on January 19, 2006, from the OOE on April 19, 2006, from the OOE +OOE + OOOE + from the value of the inheritance tax, each of the above money shall be included in the taxable amount of the inheritance tax. The donation amount short of OOE is not included in the taxable amount of the gift tax; on the ground that the donation amount between the spouse is included in the taxable amount of the gift tax; on the ground that the donation amount from January 19, 206 and April 19, 2006 is included in the taxable amount of the gift tax; ① the Plaintiff’s OE(including additional tax on the inheritance tax on the Plaintiff and the additional tax on the Plaintiff 2OEOE(including the OEEEN).

E. The Plaintiffs filed each objection, and from the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on February 24, 2012, the Plaintiff Company rendered a decision to dismiss the remainder of the objection, excluding the taxable amount of the inheritance tax, and the Plaintiff Company received a decision of dismissal. Accordingly, on March 26, 2012, the Defendant rendered a decision of dismissal on the reduction of the inheritance tax against the Plaintiff E (including the additional tax), as the OOOO(including the additional tax), the KoreaCC, and the Korea-B on March 26, 2012, on each of the OOO(including the additional tax), and on Korea-E on each of the OOO(including the additional tax) (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiffs filed an appeal on June 25, 2012, but received each decision on dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on September 14, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, 27, 28 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 10, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff, who was the father of the Plaintiff, entrusted the FF with the money donated by the Justice J, who was his father, to the FF. As such, the Plaintiff’s return of the OOE to the purchase price for the first real estate, does not constitute a prior donation.

(2) The Plaintiff 1B and U.K.’s spouse, in return for employment in KoreaF and worked for 25 years, received OOOO and OOOO in the second real estate purchase price, and the third real estate loan repayment. Therefore, it does not constitute a prior donation.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

C. Determination

(1) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person who is recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, the need to prove it is the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001). Furthermore, even in cases where the source of money disbursed in the name of a taxpayer is revealed to be a donor by the tax authority, such money is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.

(2) According to the above facts, it is presumed that the Plaintiff received each advance donation in accordance with the above legal principles on the ground that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff HanB received the payment of the purchase price, etc. from Han F as OO (=OOO + OOO won).

(3) (A) The evidence of this case is consistent with the assertion of this case. (1) The evidence of this case was presented to the plaintiff 5's non-indicted 1, 16, 20, and 44, so it is difficult to find that the plaintiff 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 5's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted's non-indicted 1's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted

(나) 또한 원고 한BB은 주장에 부합하는 장애인증명서 등을 제출하였으나, ① 장애인증명서, 생활기록부, 복지카드(갑 제23, 24, 35호증)에 관하여; 원고 한BB이 지적장애인인 사실만 인정되고, ② 졸업증명서(갑 제25호증)에 관하여; 유KK이 PP중학교를 졸업만 사실만 인정되고, ③ 사진, 간이과세자 부가가치세 간편신고서(갑 제 26호증의 1 내지 5, 제34호증의 1, 2, 3, 제43호증)에 관하여; 원고 한BB이 'QQ철물'을 운영하는 사실만 인정되고 ④ 통장사본(갑 제32호증의 1 내지 10, 제33호증의 1 내지 9)에 관하여; 원고 한BB과 유KK의 각 금융거래내역만이 인정되고, ⑤ 뉴시스 기사(갑 제37호증)에 관하여; 2012. 6.경 기준 민간기업과 공공부분의 장애인고용률만 인정되고, ⑥ 인터넷 기사, BB문제연구소 공익소송 홈페이지, 소장(갑 제38호증, 제39호증의 1, 2)에 관하여; 지적장애인을 착취한 자를 상대로 고발이 이루어지고, 부당이득반환청구소송이 제기된 사실만 인정되고, ⑦ 간이과세자 부가가치세 신고서(갑 제40호증의 1 내지 8)에 관하여; 원고 이AA에게 부동산임대소득이 있는 사실만 인정 되고, ⑧ 최저생계비 통계청 자료(갑 제41호증)에 관하여; 2000년부터 2010년까지 6인 가족 최저생계비만 인정되고, ⑨ 납세사실 증명(갑 제42호증)에 관하여; 한FF이 2002년부터 2009년까지 납부한 납세내역만 인정되고, ⑩ 증인 한CC의 증언, 원고 이AA 본인신문결과에 관하여; 원고 한BB이 자신 명의로 사업자등록을 하고 철물점을 운영한 점, 한CC은 이 사건 처분의 상대방이므로 이 사건 처분 취소로 이익을 얻게 되는 지위에 있는 점, 원고 한BB의 법정상속지분율이 1/5.5(법정상속재산가액 OOOO원)인데도, 실제 상속지분율은 그보다 적은 0.0089(실제상속재산가액 OOOO원)인 점 등을 고려할 때, 그대로 믿기 어려우므로, 위 각 증거들만으로는 원고 한BB과 유KK이 한FF에 고용되어 25년간 근무한 대가로 OOOO원을 받았다고 볼 수 없다{오히려, 원고 한BB이 지적장애인으로 한FF 운영의 동아건재에서 일한 사정이 인정되나, 원고 한BB은 1995. 7. 29.부터 QQ철물의 사업자로 등록하여 부가가치세를 납부하여 온 점, 한FF의 소득세신고액에 비하여 OOOO원은 고액인 점, 액수가 한EE의 실제 상속재산가액 OOOO원과 비슷한데, 이는 OOOO원이 참작된 것으로 보이는 점, 원고 한BB은 자신의 상속액이 적다는 이유로 다른 상속인들을 상대로 반환청구 등을 요구한 적이 없는 점(원고 한BB 주장과 같이 근로의 대가로 받았다면, 다른 상속인들에게 상속액을 양보할 이유를 찾을 수 없다) 등을 고려할 때, OOOO원은 한FF에 의하여 증여된 돈이라고 보아야 한다}.

(4) Therefore, the instant disposition is lawful (the Defendant deemed that OOO was donated on April 19, 2006 and thus imposed a gift tax, but is less than the amount of the penalty tax originally imposed, and thus cannot be deemed unlawful).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.