early 2010Gu2921 ( October 23, 2011)

Since the donor is confirmed to be the decedent, gift tax and inheritance tax decision is legitimate.

The decedent notarized a statement confirming that he/she was donated to the Plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that there was symptoms of dementia at the time of notarial acts, and the decedent is determined as the donor due to lack of evidence to prove that the actual deposit price in the name of the decedent is the intervenor.

2011Guhap1292 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

AAAAA

Head of North Daegu Tax Office

November 30, 2011

January 11, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including costs incurred by participation.

The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 82,792,067 on June 11, 2010 on the part of 2008, and the imposition of KRW 152,989,10 on October 4, 201, and the imposition of KRW 152,989,10 on the part of 208, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. Nonparty B B, CategoryCC, CategoryD, Plaintiff, and Intervenor did not declare inheritance tax as the heir of the Category E E (hereinafter “E”) who died on August 5, 2008.

B. As a result, the defendant examined the inherited property from March 31, 2010 to May 12, 2010, the plaintiff was 204.

4. 9. Recognizing that the decedent donated KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff, ① on June 11, 2010, inheritance tax was imposed KRW 93,219,770, and ② on the same day, the gift tax was imposed KRW 160,372,800 after subtracting KRW 30,000,00 from the gift tax deduction of KRW 500,000 from the above KRW 500,00, and the gift tax was imposed KRW 160,372,80 on October 4, 2010, on the ground that the Plaintiff changed the gift amount to KRW 485,00,000, and KRW 30,000 for the reason that the Plaintiff is a Korean national residing abroad (nonresident) and added KRW 5,647,500 to the gift tax.

C. On September 8, 2010, with respect to the imposition of inheritance tax and gift tax as of June 11, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with each Tax Tribunal on the disposition of additional imposition of gift tax as of December 10, 2010, but was dismissed on February 23, 201.

D. In the instant lawsuit, the Defendant, ex officio around October 201, recognized the donation date as of April 27, 2004, the donation amount as of April 27, 2004, as of KRW 465,009, and revised the gift tax as of KRW 152,989, and KRW 100, and the inheritance tax as of KRW 82,792,067 (hereinafter the “instant disposition”).

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-1-3, Gap evidence 4-1-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 5-6, and the purport of the whole theory of change

2. The plaintiff's assertion is as follows.

The instant disposition based on the premise that the decedent is the actual donor, rather than the decedent, is illegal, even though the donor was not the decedent but the Plaintiff’s death penalty, which was the donated property of KRW 465,009,50.

3. Related statutes;

Attachment 'Related Acts and subordinate statutes' shall be as shown.

4. Whether the portion of gift tax among the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. The Defendant asserted in a complaint that the actual donation date of KRW 500,000,00,00,00,000, which is the cause of the original disposition, was the actual donation date of KRW 465,00,00,00,00, and the donation amount was 465,009,50,00. The Defendant recognized the above assertion around October 201 in a lawsuit, and corrected gift tax to KRW 152,989,10,00, and accordingly, asserts that, regardless of whom the donor appears, the legitimate gift tax was 152,989,100, and thus

B. According to Articles 4 and 53 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), a donor has different obligation to jointly pay the gift tax depending on whether the donor is a decedent or an intervenor, and the scope of deduction of the gift tax is different. As such, the Plaintiff has a benefit in claiming a lawsuit to impose the gift tax on the premise that the donor is not the decedent, which is the actual donor. Thus, the Defendant’s safety defense is without merit.

5. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 1995, the decedent operated 'GG' in 0,000, Daegu Northern-gu, Daegu-gu, 00-0, and owned a lot of property including 2,438 square meters, including 00-0,000 OOdong, Daegu-gu, and 16,000 square meters.

B. Around 2002, the decedent resided in the office of the Intervenor, a South-North Korea, and entrusted the management of property to the intervenors by entrusting his deposit passbook and seal imprint to the intervenors.

C. Around February 18, 2003, the Intervenor sold real estate listed in the above paragraph A above to the development of the second industry in the non-party corporation II, and deposited 1,960,703, and 000 won in the name of the inheritee in the bank account in the name of the inheritee, and the remainder 1,723,780, and 00 won in the account in the name of the Intervenor.

(d) At around April 2003, the decedent donated the sum of KRW 1,120, and 00, and KRW 000, and KRW 280,000 to the Plaintiff, Category BB, CategoryCC, and CategoryD, respectively, among the Daegu bank deposits in the name of the decedent described in paragraph (c) above.

E. Around January 26, 2004, the decedent completed the registration of ownership transfer on the basis of donation with respect to shares of 1/2 shares of 1,362 square meters in Daegu-gu OOdong-dong 000, and 00-00 square meters and 63 square meters in 1/2 shares in the same ownership, and the decedent completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day with respect to 11-2 forest and 33,818 square meters in Do-dong 11-2 forest and 33,818 square meters in Do-dong-dong 2004.

F. On February 12, 2004, the inheritee’s wife, KK, the Intervenor’s children’s children LL and mM were the obligor, and the obligor’s deposit claims amounting to one billion won (Tgu District Court Order 2004Kadan4833 Decided March 2004) were provisionally seized on the obligor’s deposit claims amounting to one billion won (Tgu District Court Order 2004Kadan4833).

G. On April 9, 2004, the decedent transferred KRW 500 million to the Daegu bank deposit in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant deposit”). On April 27, 2004, the Intervenor, while keeping the instant deposit passbook, issued the instant deposit passbook to the Plaintiff where the remainder remains in KRW 465,009,50.

H. On March 23, 2006, the decedent filed a lawsuit to cancel the registration of ownership transfer against the owner on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the above paragraph (e) was based on title trust or fraudulent donation, but on May 17, 2005, the decedent appealed against the first instance court (Seoul District Court Decision 2004Gahap 4168), but on February 17, 2006, the appeal was dismissed (Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na4025) and became final and conclusive on March 9, 206.

I. On March 23, 2006, the decedent prepared a written statement that " around April 2004, the decedent donated 500 million won to the plaintiff the deposit of the decedent" and notarized (Evidence B No. 3).

(j) The judgment of the Daegu District Court 20047rhap4168 in the above paragraph (h) contains the following: (a) the decedent obtained 25 points out of 30 points from Mamp E (Mini Mini Matus Examinc, Simple mental condition test) which was conducted on October 9, 2002 and February 1, 2004; and (b) there was almost no symptoms of dementia (at least 21 points, it is recognized as having good mental condition as Mtild AD).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 3, witness Eul's testimony, part of witness B's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

6. Determination

On February 12, 2004, the decedent attached 1 billion won property of the intervenor and the intervenor's wife and children. ② On April 9, 2004, the plaintiff transferred 500 million won to the deposit account in the name of the plaintiff under the name of the intervenor in the deposit account in the name of the decedent. There is insufficient evidence to recognize that the actual deposit price in the name of the above decedent is the intervenor. On April 27, 2004, the plaintiff received 465,09,50 won from the intervenor, and 8) on March 23, 2006, the decedent attested the plaintiff that the decedent gave 50 million won property to the plaintiff, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that there was a symptoms of dementia at the time of notarial acts. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff received 50 million won from the intervenor around April 27, 2004, and it is not reasonable to deem the plaintiff's donation.

7. Conclusion

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