Diab01 Schedule 2488 ( November 15, 2011)

It is presumed that the amount equivalent to the money deposited in the account is donated.

As long as the nominal owner of the deposit account is the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to presume that the Plaintiff was donated the amount of money deposited in the said account as long as the Plaintiff is the nominal owner of the deposit account, and special circumstances that the said change of title was made for other than the gift requires proof

2012Guhap476 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

The AAA

Head of tax office

May 14, 2013

June 11, 2013

1. The parts of the instant lawsuit, between the gift tax amount of KRW 000, and the gift tax amount of KRW 000, shall be all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 00,00 (the portion of gift on September 28, 2005), KRW 000 (the portion of gift on January 2, 2006), and KRW 000 (the portion of gift on December 17, 2007), and KRW 000 (the portion of gift on October 2, 2008) imposed on the Plaintiff on April 6, 201 by the head of Msan Tax Office shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts may be recognized by integrating the items in subparagraph 1, and subparagraphs 1 through 4 of subparagraph 1 and the whole purport of arguments:

A. On April 6, 2011, the Defendant deposited the amount indicated in each entry column in the Plaintiff’s deposit account as of the date indicated in the deposit date of each deposit sheet in the separate sheet, and SongB paid the Plaintiff KRW 000 of the acquisition fund of the apartment house No. 000, Daegu-gu, which was acquired by the Plaintiff on April 24, 2006, and on February 25, 2003, imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff paid KRW 000 of the insurance money to the Plaintiff and donated each donation.

B. On July 5, 201, the Plaintiff dissatisfied with the above disposition of gift tax, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 5, 201, and on November 15, 201, the Tax Tribunal revoked the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 (the portion of gift on April 24, 2006), and the gift tax of KRW 000 (the portion of gift on January 16, 2007), and the gift tax of KRW 00 (the portion of gift on March 27, 2007) and KRW 00 (the portion of gift on December 17, 2007) with the gift tax of KRW 00 (the portion of gift on January 16, 200), and the portion of gift tax of KRW 00 (the portion of gift on October 24, 200) with respect to the first disposition of imposition of gift tax, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s remaining tax amount to be reduced by 20% general penalty tax (the rate of correction).

C. Accordingly, the amount of gift tax corresponding to the amount of KRW 00,00, and the amount of gift tax corresponding to the amount of KRW 17, which is the amount of gift tax corresponding to the amount of KRW 15,00, which is the amount of gift tax corresponding to the amount of KRW 17,00,00 (the amount of gift tax remaining after reduction or correction as above, and the amount of gift tax corresponding to the amount of KRW 00,00,000, and each amount of gift tax corresponding to the amount of gift tax in

2. Whether a request for revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax on the reduced or corrected portion is legitimate.

ex officio, among the instant lawsuits, the amount of reduced or corrected gift tax of KRW 000 and KRW 000 among the amount of gift tax of KRW 000 and KRW 000 among the amount of gift tax of KRW 00 are revoked, and the disposition is no longer effective, and the revocation lawsuit against the non-existent administrative disposition is illegal as there is no benefit in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Du15343, Oct. 13, 201). The Tax Tribunal revoked ex officio the above disposition of imposition on November 15, 201, which was before the instant lawsuit is filed. Therefore, the lawsuit seeking revocation of the above portion of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit in the lawsuit and is no benefit in the lawsuit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

In order to avoid comprehensive taxation on financial income, SongB opened a deposit account in the column of the attached deposit statement Nos. 5, 7, 15, and 17 in each deposit account in the name of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit account in this case") and managed each of the money recorded in the column of the deposit amount in each of the above accounts (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit in this case"). Therefore, the disposition in this case that determined that SongB received the money corresponding to the deposit in this case from Song and SongD as the deposit account in which only the name of the plaintiff was transferred to the plaintiff.

(b) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be admitted by entry in each of Gap evidence 2, and 12 through 14:

1) On September 28, 2005, KRW 000, which was withdrawn from the accounts of SongD, was deposited into a new regular deposit account (000) opened in the name of the plaintiff at the Daegu-dong branch of Japan Bank.

2) On January 2, 2006, KRW 000, which was withdrawn from the account of SongB, was deposited into the said regular deposit account opened in the name of the Plaintiff at the Daegu Eastdong Branch of the Japan Bank.

3) On December 17, 2007, KRW 000, which was withdrawn from the accounts of SongB, was deposited into a regular deposit account (000) opened in the name of the Plaintiff at the Busan Arup Hot Spring Branch in the name of the Plaintiff.

4) On October 2, 2008, KRW 000, which was withdrawn from the accounts of SongB, was deposited into the said regular deposit account opened in the name of the Plaintiff at the Doi Agricultural Hot Spring Branch.

C. Determination

1) As long as the amount of money of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been deposited in a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax imposition, and the amount is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer, and if special circumstances exist, such as withdrawal of such money and transfer of money to the account under the taxpayer’s name to another purpose, rather than donation, it is necessary to provide evidence to the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6290, Oct. 10, 2003). In addition, if a deposit contract was concluded through a real name verification procedure under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality and the fact-finding is clearly stated in the deposit contract form, it would be reasonable to regard the deposit title holder as the deposit owner as the party to the deposit contract, and in light of such legal principles, the amount should be presumed to have been deposited to have been transferred to the Plaintiff for the purpose of proving that the Plaintiff’s donation was made to the Plaintiff as the title holder of the deposit account in this case, and the amount should be presumed to have been deposited in the above account.

2) Whether the plaintiff can prove

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the purport of the entire arguments and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the money deposited in the instant deposit account was made for any purpose other than donation, and there is no other evidence to support it, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

A) The plaintiff himself/herself is residing in Daegu-gu 000, Daegu-gu from May 2006, and it is difficult to view that he/she engaged in the entry and exit transaction of the deposit of this case at the Busan-gun hot Spring Site located in Gyeongnam-gun, which takes a considerable time for coming from the above place of residence, but it is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's allegation, and there is no other evidence to support the plaintiff's allegation. Rather, according to each entry of No. 5 (the plaintiff's resident registration certificate), No. 3 (personal business details inquiry), and No. 15 (the plaintiff's resident registration certificate), and No. 7 (the resident registration certificate), No. 8 (the non-payment certificate), and No. 9 (the non-payment certificate), and No. 15 (the fact that the plaintiff resided in the above place of residence of this case from 200 to 200, and the plaintiff's deposit of this case from 200 to 203.

B) Next, in light of the fact that the signature of the instant deposit account does not fall under BB and the Plaintiff’s implementation, and that SongB’s entry and exit by the principal customer was an old age, and SongB was unable to make a direct deposit slip or withdrawal slip, the Plaintiff asserted that SongB owned and managed the instant deposit as the actual deposit owner, and even if recognizing such fact, there can be a number of persons who actually prepared the deposit slip and deposit and withdrawal slip depending on the situation at the time of individual deposit and withdrawal. Therefore, it is difficult to view that such fact alone alone does not constitute a donation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that it cannot be deemed to have given the Plaintiff a donation of the money indicated in the deposit amount column of No. 5 of the attached Form No. 5 to the Plaintiff. However, it is difficult to deem that there is any special circumstance that the payment of the deposit cannot be deemed as a donation on the sole basis that the Plaintiff and SongD is a penalty. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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