It cannot be presumed that the fact that the Plaintiff received money from the Plaintiff’s account or the Plaintiff’s deposit account is presumed to have been donated in light of the empirical rule.

The fact that the Plaintiff received money from the Plaintiff’s account or the Plaintiff’s account opened cannot be presumed to have been presumed to have been donated in light of the empirical rule, and it is recognized to have been conducted for the purpose of management other than the donation. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the right of taxation, needs to prove the fact that

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Gift Tax Taxables)

2015Guhap2072

○ ○

○ Head of tax office

October 20, 2015

November 17, 2015

1. As to the Plaintiff:

(a) Each imposition of gift tax of KRW 99,091,219 (including additional taxes), KRW 115,414,060 (including additional taxes), KRW 58,202,521 (including additional taxes), KRW 255,476,09 (including additional taxes), and KRW 16,70,40 (including additional taxes), and KRW 15,606,00 (including additional taxes) and KRW 192,639,423 (including additional taxes);

B. Imposition of KRW 20,598,792 (including additional taxes) of the gift tax for the year 2012, as of August 10, 2012

Each cancellation shall be revoked.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Commissioner of the National Tax Service, from March 12, 2012 to June 30, 2012, conducted a tax investigation with respect to AA (hereinafter “instant company”), and recognized that BBB, the Plaintiff’s father, transferred 19,040 shares of the instant company (hereinafter “instant shares”) to CCC around 2009, received KRW 10,472,514,080 (hereinafter “instant shares”) while transferring the shares of the instant company to CCC, and notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff several times from March 12, 2009 to June 30, 2012.

B. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant: (a) on August 10, 2012, with respect to 2 cases of donation in the year 2012, as to the Plaintiff.

A total of KRW 2,470,712,40 (including additional taxes) was imposed and collected on the total of KRW 2,470,712,400 (including additional taxes), and on August 14, 2012, the total of KRW 338,461,200 (including additional taxes), KRW 853,507,500 (including additional taxes), and KRW 631,456,420 (including additional taxes) were imposed and collected on the total of KRW 631,420 (including 631,456,420).

C. On November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a tax appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On November 2012, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to rectify the tax base and the amount of gift tax on the remainder of donations other than KRW 7,647,402,369, total sum of KRW 23 donations as indicated in paragraph (b) on November 2014, 2014, KRW 1,143,258,200, securities investment amount, KRW 370,318,00,00, and KRW 47,00,00,000, and KRW 1,813,427,072 (hereinafter “the instant amount”).

D. Accordingly, on December 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) maintained a total of KRW 773,728,514 of the gift tax on the instant money cited in the decision of a tax trial; and (b) notified the Plaintiff of the reduction or correction of the details of the revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax on the remaining donations (hereinafter “instant disposition imposing gift tax”).

The remaining 73,728,514 won after reduction is referred to as the "disposition of this case".

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, 9, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff is merely delegated by the BB with the authority to receive, manage, and execute the transfer price of the instant shares due to the health deterioration of the BB, his father. In particular, the Plaintiff’s use of funds, such as lending of investment in real estate and investment in the company, donation of church funds, contribution to employees, teachers, and two ancillarys related to the instant disposition, such as purchase of scambs, marriage and tugboating expenses, interior expenses, securities investment funds, etc., is executed with the consent of BB after obtaining the consent from the BB. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the instant funds from the BB, and thus, the instant disposition based on such premise is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) BB, the father of the Plaintiff, as of December 31, 201, owned 19,441 shares of the instant company as of December 31, 201, and held office as the representative director of the instant company until October 8, 2008, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the instant company on October 8, 2008.

2) BB transferred 19,040 shares of the company of this case, which was held in title with DD and 20 others on November 30, 2009, to CCC a total of KRW 10,472,514,080, and received shares transfer proceeds under the name of the plaintiff EE deposit account (Account Number:***************************) and DD and 17 deposits (hereinafter referred to as "each deposit account of this case"), each shareholder's shares transfer proceeds and subsequent tax amounts are as listed in attached Table 1.

3) Since 192, BB received regular outpatients from the 1992, she was hospitalized at the Seoul National University Hospital for a simple surgery on December 30, 2009, and on February 11, 2010, at the time of transfer of the instant shares, such as undergoing a simple surgery, etc., the health was significantly deteriorated around November 30, 2009, when transferring the instant shares.

4) In each of the instant savings accounts, the Plaintiff spent loans to corporations and individuals related to the instant company, church donation funds, local income tax imposed on BB, security for the deferment of gift tax collection, and loans to BB heads and women. In light of such spending details, the Tax Tribunal determined that BB was in fact controlled and managed each of the instant savings accounts through the Plaintiff and received the benefit therefrom.

5) On December 17, 2009 to June 5, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased a total of KRW 1,143,258,200 from the department store over 37 occasions with the money withdrawn from each of the instant savings accounts, and stored in the treasury of the instant company.

6) On January 30, 2010, the Plaintiff was married in FFF located in 00,00,000: (a) around 103,370,872 won for wedding expenses; and (b) KRW 252,850,872 for wedding expenses (the release on bail and visibility 3 points); and (c) KRW 149,480,000 for wedding expenses (the release on bail and visibility 149,480,850,872 for the transfer of the instant shares; and (d) currently, the said weddings are owned and used by GGG, the Plaintiff’s wife

7) From April to May 2010, the Plaintiff, a mother of HH, spent KRW 47,00,000 from the share transfer price of the instant apartment at the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior 00,000 Dong 00,000, and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife currently reside in the said apartment.

8) Plaintiff’s securities investment

A) On May 20, 201, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 15,000,000 from the three accounts managed by the Plaintiff, and delivered KRW 248,409,000 in total, from May 27, 2011, to the JJ on 00 securities. On February 17, 2011, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 3,000,000 in the Plaintiff’s name.

B) On May 27, 2011, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 233,409,000 from the Plaintiff’s account and delivered it to LLL of 00 securities. Of them, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 208,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s account on February 17, 2012.

C) On May 26, 2011, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 99,500,000 from the account of MM managed by the Plaintiff and delivered 00 securities to NN.

D) As above, the transfer price of the instant shares withdrawn by the Plaintiff for the purpose of stock investment is KRW 581,318,00,000 among them, and collected KRW 211,00,000 among them to the Plaintiff’s account. As such, the amount used by the Plaintiff for stock investment is KRW 370,318,00.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, evidence before finding, evidence of Gap 3 through 8, and evidence of 12 through 19

Each entry, evidence No. 20 of Gap evidence 20, the purport of the whole pleadings

E. Determination

1) In general, in a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition of imposing tax, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements shall be the imposing authority. However, if it is found that the facts of taxation requirements are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, the other party is eligible for application of the empirical rule.

Unless it is proven that the pertinent taxation disposition was an unlawful disposition that did not meet the taxation requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 2007). In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing a gift tax, the deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, as long as the deposit in the name of the person who was recognized as a donor by the tax authority was withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of the taxpayer, etc., is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, the withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in

In special circumstances, such as that it was made for any purpose other than donation, such entry

The necessity of evidence lies on taxpayers (see Supreme Court Decision 99Du4082 delivered on November 13, 2001).

2) In the instant case, it is reasonable to view that BB actually controls and manages the instant share transfer price through the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., ① BB managed the instant shares in title trust to the next-name shareholders; most of the instant shares were deposited in the deposit account opened in the name of the same-name shareholders; ② BB appears to have been substantially controlled and managed by the instant company as a major shareholder holding 48.602% of the instant shares after the transfer of the instant shares; ③ the method of storage, use, and disbursement of the instant shares transfer price, based on the circumstance that BB deposited the instant shares transfer price in the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name or in each of the instant savings accounts opened by the Plaintiff, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff was presumed to have received a donation from the Plaintiff in light of the empirical rule, which is the purpose of managing the instant shares transfer price. Accordingly, it is necessary to prove that BB was subject to taxation by the Defendant, who was subject to the disposition of this case.

3) First, as to the purchase cost of the pre-sale of pre-sale 1,143,258,200 won for the pre-sale 1,143,258,200 won, the following circumstances can be revealed by adding the overall purport of the pleadings. i.e., the representative director of the company at present, the representative director of the company at issue, and the BB, as major shareholders of the company at issue. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff actually occupies, manages, and manages the pre-sale 1.1 billion won for the purchase cost of pre-sale 1,143,258,200 won for the pre-sale 1,100 won for the pre-sale 1,143,258,200 won for the pre-sale 1,200 won for the pre-sale 37 occasions. In light of the fact that the Defendant asserted that the pre-sale 1,240,250 won for the purchase cost of pre-sale 1,250,20 won for the donation 37.

4) Next, in light of the following: (a) health care room for KRW 252,850,872 of the expenses for marriage and wedding; and (b) the overall purport of the arguments as to the facts acknowledged earlier; (c) the burden of marriage expenses and wedding expenses for mixed-sale type constitutes a generally accepted social custom; and (d) the burden of such expenses is difficult to be deemed subject to gift tax unless there are circumstances that the expenses are excessive to the extent that they are not acceptable under the generally accepted social norms; (b) in light of the history of BB, it is difficult to deem that the amount paid for the Plaintiff’s marriage expenses is excessive to the extent that it is difficult to be acceptable under the generally accepted social norms; and (c) in particular, in light of the fact that it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff due to the ownership and possession of GGG, which is currently the Plaintiff’s wife; and (d) it is difficult to recognize that BB donated the Plaintiff with marriage and wedding expenses,

5) Next, in light of the following facts, it is difficult to recognize that BB donated KRW 47,00,000 to the Plaintiff an apartment complex cost of KRW 47,00 on the sole basis of the circumstance asserted by the Defendant, in light of the following facts: (a) the increase in the value of a building due to the interior works of an apartment is reflected in the market price of the apartment; and (b) the following facts are deemed to have been reverted to HH, the owner of the apartment; and (c) even though the Plaintiff resided in the apartment complex and enjoyed de facto profit from the interior works, this is merely an anti-private interest due to the possession of the apartment, it is difficult to recognize that BB donated the Plaintiff a donation of KRW 47,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

6) Next, in light of the following: (a) acknowledged facts as 370,318,00 won of securities investment funds; and (b) acknowledged as a whole based on the overall purport of the arguments as a whole; (c) as long as BB practically controlled and managed the transfer price of the instant stocks through the Plaintiff, securities investment funds withdrawn from each of the instant savings accounts should also be deemed as owned by BB; (b) although the health condition of BB was not good around 201, it does not seem to have deteriorated as much as making it impossible for BB to make an equity investment due to the Plaintiff; (c) OO, an employee of 00 securities company, made a statement to the effect that it managed the securities investment funds under the name of NN, NLL, and JJ on the delegation of BB around 2011, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff used the securities investment funds on its own account solely based on the circumstance alleged by the Defendant.

7) Therefore, since the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the instant monetary donation from BB from around 2009 to around 2012, the instant disposition is unlawful as it is not recognized as a taxation requirement.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.