It is difficult to reverse the presumption of donation only on the sole ground that a large amount of money was paid to support the deceased.

As long as the direct use of the key amount is unclear, there is also no objective evidence on the fact that it is difficult to reverse the presumption of donation only because the plaintiff paid a large amount of money to support the deceased ex post facto, and that the amount paid for the deceased exceeds the monthly average living expenses, such as the medical expenses recognized by the tax authority.

2012Guhap4017 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing Gift Tax

D. D

Head of Namyang District Tax Office

June 4, 2013

July 9, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On April 3, 2012, the Defendant revoked the imposition of gift tax of KRW 74,954, and KRW 300 on the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 1, 2010, the Plaintiff’s AA (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) died.

B. However, on September 28, 2006, the Deceased’s death deposited KRW 000 in the Plaintiff’s modern securities account on the same day as the check was withdrawn, and KRW 000 was transferred from April 16, 2008 to the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account, and ③ on April 18, 2008, 100 won was deposited from the Deceased’s one bank account to the Plaintiff’s new bank account on the same day.

C. On April 3, 2012, the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff, deemed that the sum of KRW 000 (the sum above shall be referred to as "the amount in dispute", and when specifying the amount in each paragraph, hereinafter referred to as "amount in dispute") was donated from the Deceased, and on April 3, 2012, the Plaintiff imposed a total of KRW 00 (00, KRW 00 for the donations in the above paragraph (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition") on the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the instant disposition").

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key amount is that it is unfair to regard it as a donation to the plaintiff because it is not only a simple transfer to the plaintiff for the convenience of hospital expenses, living expenses, etc. of the deceased and his spouse, who is a serious patient.

B. Determination

Inasmuch as it is found in a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, and that a deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and there are special circumstances, such as withdrawing such deposit and paying deposits in the taxpayer’s name, etc. are made for purposes other than gift (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, the issues at which the instant case was withdrawn from the account in the name of the plaintiff was deposited into the account in the name of the plaintiff, and the said amount is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiff (Article 15 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cited by the plaintiff is presumed to have been succeeded to the property prior to the commencement date of inheritance, and is irrelevant to the instant case), and in light of the following circumstances, each of the entries on Gap 1 through 3, 7 through 11, and 14 through 23 (including the provisional number) are not sufficient to recognize that there are special circumstances to reverse the said presumption, and there is no other evidence to support this. Accordingly, the plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable.

O The plaintiff asserted that the issue amount of paragraph (1) was transferred to the plaintiff's new bank account on November 8, 2006, but the above amount transferred to the reorganization of the new bank account was withdrawn in full on the same day, and its use is not known.

O The plaintiff asserts that the issue amount of paragraph (1) as above was temporarily remitted toCC, which was operated by the plaintiff, but it is only supported by the fact that the plaintiff is the actual disposal authority of the above money.

O The amount of the last transfer to the new bank account of the plaintiff, and the third issue amount was also withdrawn within several days.

O As long as the direct use of the disputed amount is unclear as above, and only if the plaintiff paid a large amount of money to support the deceased ex post facto, it is difficult to reverse the presumption of donation, and there is also no objective evidence as to the fact that the amount the plaintiff paid for the deceased exceeds the monthly average of KRW 2.5 million with the medical expenses recognized by the defendant and the monthly average of KRW 000,000,000.

O's property owned has been significant before the birth, and it does not seem that it depends entirely on the support of the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.