Cho High Court Decision 201Do0459 (O6.02)

Donations

Dismissal

The claimant is deemed to recover some of the proceeds of the loan, but there is no objective evidence of the loan, and it is difficult for the claimant to accept them in light of the flow of money using the applicant's friendship, etc.

Article 2 (Gift Gift Tax Taxables)

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of disposition;

A. In transferring an OOOOOOO (49 square meters; hereinafter referred to as "sub-store apartment") held by the claimant's SOOO, 450 million won (1.20 million won on September 23, 2006; 80 million won on September 25, 2006; 350 million won on November 1, 2006) was deposited in the claimant's deposit passbook through the claimant's pro-Japanese or RedO's deposit passbook, the competent authorities deemed that the claim's 450 million won was donated in cash on December 13, 2010, and the disposition authority decided 450 million won on September 23, 2006; 1.5 million won on September 25, 2006; 203.3.6 billion won on September 24, 2005; 2013.6.1.65 billion won on May 26, 2010;

B. The claimant appealed and filed an appeal on January 17, 201.

2. Opinions of the claimant and disposition agency;

A. The claimant's assertion

It is true that 450 million won has been deposited in the applicant's deposit passbook, but only 139 million won should be regarded as a donation, since the amount of 31 million won has been refunded to the cryman because it was refunded to the cryman.

On February 28, 1999, the MOO paid a total of 31 million won on behalf of the OOO on December 15, 1998, and KRW 31 million on January 20, 199, and KRW 166,000,000 on February 28, 199, to the OO on behalf of the OO, and the OO was confirmed by a receipt signed and sealed by the OO, and the Claimant was residing in the O free of charge for four years in the key apartment in return for the loan of the key amount.

The source of the key amount of money is the sum of the purchase price transferred on February 22, 1999 and the savings amount that has been maintained by the claimant's husband in Gyeonggi-do OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO owned by the claimant.

As such, the key amount should be excluded from the gift value, since the rightO lent the apartment to the claimant at the time of acquiring the apartment at issue, and it was returned from the transfer price of the apartment at issue.

(b) Opinions of disposition agencies;

Although the claimant asserts that the rightO lent the outstanding amount of money due to insufficient funds at the time of acquiring the apartment at issue, the receipts submitted as evidentiary documents cannot be deemed objective and apparent evidence, the rightO applied conversion acquisition value by reporting the transfer income tax after transferring the apartment at issue, making it impossible to verify the accurate amount of acquisition. There is no loan certificate or interest payment fact in connection with the loan of funds, and the rightO returned the amount borrowed by the claimant from the claimant, such as the rightO's deposit passbook as the rightO's deposit passbook, it is normal to deposit immediately in the claimant's deposit passbook. However, inasmuch as the claimant's rightO returned the amount of money borrowed by the claimant, it is reasonable to deposit immediately in the claimant's deposit passbook, it shall be deemed that the receipts submitted as evidentiary documents were deposited in the claimant's deposit passbook through the rightO or RedO's deposit passbook, and

3. Hearing and determination

A. Key issue

Although it is recognized that 450 million won of the transfer price of the at issue apartment transferred by the claimant was deposited in the applicant's deposit passbook, the claim that the amount should be deducted from the donation price is returned to the 311 million won of the sale price.

(b) Relevant laws;

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

(1) Where any donated property falls under any of the following as of the date of donation due to a donation by a third party (excluding donation becoming effective due to the death of a donor; hereinafter the same shall apply), gift tax shall be levied on such donated property, as prescribed by this Act:

1. Where a person to whom property has been donated (hereinafter referred to as " donee") is a resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is located in Korea; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph and Articles 54 and 59), all of the donated property, as a donation, by the resident;

C. Facts and determination

(1) There is no dispute between the claimant and the agency in charge of the claim as to the one deposited in the applicant's deposit passbook, which is the sum of 450 million won on Nov. 1, 2006, after going through the applicant's pro-Japanese or RedO's deposit passbook in the applicant's deposit passbook.

(2) The claimant did not submit a sales contract at the time that he/she acquired the disputed apartment. On December 8, 1998, the claimant submitted a receipt of KRW 31,00,000,000,000 on January 20, 1999, and the total amount of KRW 16,000,000,000,000,000,000 won on February 28, 1999.

(3) On December 19, 2006, the KO reported the transfer income tax after transferring the key apartment and reported the transfer income tax to the actual transaction price (1.185 million won) and the acquisition price was reported as the conversion price (4.1 million won).

(4) The main contents of the sales contract are as follows in the case of transferring a key apartment.

○ Sales Price: KRW 1,185,000,000

Domins: 100,000,000 won ( September 23, 2006)

Of the Do Governor, 350,000,000 won ( November 1, 2006)

Balance: 735,00,000 won ( December 19, 2006)

(5) In the event that a claimant’s husband transfers an OOOO of Gyeonggi-do, owned by the claimant’s husband, the details of the sales contract are as follows.

○ Sales Price: 215,00,000 won

Dominent gold: 20,000,000 won ( December 29, 1998)

Of the Do Governor: 110,000,000 won ( January 19, 1999)

Balance: 85,000,000 won ( February 22, 1999)

Special Agreement Conditions: 40,000,000 Won Succession Clause

(6) In light of the applicant’s resident registration transcript, it appears that he/she resided in a key apartment for about four years from March 3, 2001 to March 4, 2005.

(7) The claimant asserts that, while acquiring an apartment at issue, the KOO, the SOO, the money was insufficient, the claimant lent the key amount (31 million won) to the claimant, and that it should be deducted from the gift value, since the claim was returned from the proceeds of the sale of the apartment at issue.

In light of the fact that the transfer income tax following the transfer of a key apartment is reported by the GOOO and the KOOO applied the conversion acquisition value by making it impossible to confirm the accurate acquisition value, the claimant also fails to submit a sales contract when acquiring the key amount, the receipt is submitted without presenting objective evidence, such as financial transaction details, etc. as to the lease of the key amount, and if the GOO returned the key amount to the claimant, the key amount of the transfer price of the key apartment is immediately deposited in the claimant's deposit passbook, but it is difficult to recognize the claim claim in light of the fact that the key amount of the transfer price of the key apartment is deposited immediately in the claimant's deposit passbook through the applicant's deposit passbook.

4. Conclusion

This case shall be decided as ordered in accordance with Articles 81 and 65 (1)2 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, because the petition for a trial has no merit as a result of the review.