Suwon District Court 2014Guhap61492

The disposition of this case that the Plaintiff reported that the amount of gift was donated from his father among the funds to acquire the real estate of this case is legitimate.

(1) In order to reverse the presumption of donation, it is necessary to verify the source of property acquisition fund separate from the funds presumed to be the donation, and to prove that the funds have been used as the acquisition fund of the pertinent property. However, the Plaintiff failed to disclose the source of specific funds in relation to the acquisition of the instant real estate.

Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Presumption of Donation of Property Acquisition Funds

Seoul High Court 2015Nu52168 Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax

Park AA

00. Head of tax office

November 11, 2015

December 1, 2015 09

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court in the Gu office is revoked. The imposition of the gift tax of 28,247,940 won on March 30, 2004 and the gift tax of 49,975,200 won on October 13, 2005 and the gift tax of 41,071,750 won on July 6, 2012 (including additional tax), each of which belongs to the Plaintiff on February 5, 2014, is revoked (including additional tax) (the date of each disposition stated in the purport of the complaint's claim and each of the purport of the appeal).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. Thus, the reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases: (a) Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts in height:

○ The second table "2. 12. 2. 2. 2. 3. 2014. 5. 5. 2. 3. 201. 2. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 2

According to the 6th 3 through 7th juries as follows, the plaintiff was paid 7,20,00 won in BB house from January 1, 1997 to November 1, 1997, and 3,200,000 won in CCC, 9,60,000 won in 11,20,000,000 won in 12,00,000,000, 200,000, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 16, 13,750, 13, 750, 200, 204, 107, 2008, 200, 2007, 200, 2005, 206, 2007, 2000.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4 through 8, 10, 11, Eul evidence 2 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

○○ 14 or 16 pages 7 are as follows. ① The sum of the earned income reported by the Plaintiff for 15 years from 1997 to 2012 is merely 223,370,00 won per annum and is merely 14,891,333 won (monthly 1,240,944) per annum, and considering the Plaintiff’s age, social status, etc., such earned income alone appears to be insufficient to acquire the real estate of this case (in addition, it is doubtful whether the Plaintiff, at the complaint around 2005, was dismissed from her father, even after her father was suffering from cerebrovascular problem, and there is no question about whether the Plaintiff made the above earned income after September 6, 2005). In addition, although the Plaintiff is running real estate rental business from September 6, 2005, it appears that the real estate was first commenced after its acquisition, and the details of the Plaintiff’s global income tax and income tax were not disclosed.

3. Conclusion

Since the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.