logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
토지를 청구인이 청구외 ○○으로부터 증여받은 것으로 본 것이 타당한지의 여부(기각)
조세심판원 조세심판 | 1990-11-28 | 국심1990서1907 | 상증
[Case Number]

National Trial 1990 Swiss1907 ( November 29, 1990)

[Items]

Donations

[Types of Decision]

Dismissal

[Summary of Decision]

When transferring land, ○○ should be deemed to have donated the value of the land to the claimant. Therefore, the initial disposition imposing gift tax, etc. on the land by deeming that the claimant donated the land from ○○○ is lawful.

[Related Acts]

Article 34 of the Inheritance Tax Act (Presumption of Donation of Insurance Money)

【Disposition】

I dismiss the appeal.

【Reasoning】

1. Facts;

The claimant has a domicile in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, and 2,928.6 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "contest land") of the land, etc. on five lots, other than OOOOOOOOOOOO of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, for the claimant's ownership transfer registration from OOOO other than the claim 8.3.7;

The disposition agency considered that the above OO was donated the land from the above OO pursuant to Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act on the ground that the claimant was the mother of the claimant, and imposed the gift tax of 59,841,120 won and the same defense tax of 10,80,200 won on the claimant on the ground that the OO was a donation of the land from the above OOO.

2. The claimant's assertion;

The claimant's assertion that it is unreasonable to impose gift tax on the land as a gift even though the claimant is not a donation of the land from an OO other than the claim, but it is obvious that he actually paid and purchased the price of KRW 41,980,000.

3. Opinions of the Commissioner of the National Tax Service;

According to the applicant's 89.12.5's OO's 89.12.5's OO's 88.3.7, the claimant's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's 59 years of death, and the husband's 1's O's O's O's 80 years of death. The claimant's O's O's O's O's 16th 16th 16th 16th 190 O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's O's .

4. Issues

In this case, the issue is whether it is reasonable for the claimant to receive a donation of the land at issue from the outsideO.

5. Hearing and determination

On the other hand, the claimant is not a donation since the plaintiff actually paid and acquired 41,980,00 won of the land at issue, and it is not a donation, so it is unreasonable to impose the gift tax on the land because it is not a donation, on the ground that the OOO is the mother of the claimant, and it is not proved that the fact of receiving the price for the land at issue is not proved, and the above OO stated that the above OO donated the land at issue to the claimant.

First of all, Article 34(1) of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that "the value of the property that is transferred to the spouse or a lineal ascendant or descendant shall be deemed to be donated to the transferee at the time of the transferor's transfer of the property," and

It can be seen that Article 773 of the Civil Code provides, “The relationship between a child born in the front place, a mother, a blood relative, and a relative by marriage shall be deemed to be the same as that of a child born.”

Then, the above OOO appears in the above OO's statement prepared on December 5, 89 that the claimant's leader was the mother of the claimant (the plaintiff's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's leader's disposition legitimate.

6. Conclusion

As a result of the review of the appeal, the claimant's assertion is groundless, the decision is made in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 and Article 65 (1) 2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.