Donations from debt exemption;

Since it is deemed that a loan is taken over in return for deducting the amount of a loan from the purchase price while acquiring real estate, it is difficult to deem that a loan was exempted from liability.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax amounting to KRW 233,190,450 against the Plaintiff on December 12, 2007 shall be revoked.

2. The litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. On May 31, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s mother KimA acquired a building of 414.2 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) from ○○○○○○-dong 306-48, 300,000 won, and completed the registration of ownership transfer each of 1/2 shares, and then appropriated a loan of 800,000 won from Cho Jae-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant loan”) with the Plaintiff as the obligor, for the payment for the purchase, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the entire real estate as security.

B. On May 10, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s largestB name with respect to the Plaintiff’s share in the instant real estate.

C. On June 9, 2005, the largestCC, the husband of the largestB, accepted the entire debt of the instant loan.

D. On February 27, 2007, KimA completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the largestCC with respect to the portion of KimA’s real estate in this case.

E. On December 12, 2007, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 233.190,450 (including additional tax) on the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s obligation of the instant loan without any particular consideration constitutes a gift arising from the repayment of obligation under Article 36 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “instant disposition 1”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Evidence No. 1. 2, 3, and Evidence No. 2-1.2, Evidence No. 3, Evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the debt of the instant loan is in the sole name of the Plaintiff, the fact is the joint debt of the Plaintiff and KimA. The Plaintiff and the LB and the LCC received the instant real estate from the Plaintiff and KimA, and instead received the instant loan from the Plaintiff and KimA, deducted the amount of the instant loan from the purchase price, instead of taking over half of the instant loan obligations. However, since the LB did not obtain the approval of the loan from the bank due to no occupation-free relationship, the instant loan was taken over in the name of the largestCC. Accordingly, the instant disposition that was made on the premise that the LCC took over the instant loan obligation under the Plaintiff’s name without any consideration is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Although the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in joint name with KimA, it has independently used and profited from the entire real estate by leasing part of the instant real estate and using some of the instant real estate as the Plaintiff’s business site.

(2) On June 16, 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) had concerns over being seized from creditors due to business aggravation; (b) sold the Plaintiff’s shares in total in KRW 900 million to the largestB, who is the Plaintiff, and (c) decided to substitute for the acceptance of half of the instant loan; (b) the account holder of the instant loan still maintained as the Plaintiff; and (c) continued to use and profit from the instant real estate.

(3) The largestB paid to the Plaintiff KRW 242,220,000 from May 29, 2003 to June 30 of the same year.

(4) The Plaintiff was liable for the interest on the loan of this case from the date of the loan of this case. Since May 2, 2005, the Plaintiff was in arrears with the interest on the loan from May 2, 2005 due to bad credit standing, making it impossible to extend the maturity of the loan.

(4) In order to prevent the Plaintiff from repaying the instant loan due to the Plaintiff’s non-performance of compulsory execution from entering the bank, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her L

(5) Accordingly, on June 9, 2005, the largestCC purchased shares in the name of KimA in total amount of KRW 900 million, and the intermediate payment of KRW 400 million in lieu of the acceptance of the obligation of KRW 400 million, which is a half of the instant loan amount. However, as it is anticipated that it is difficult to approve the loan under the name of two persons for the reason that there is no obvious income to the wife, the entire loan of this case was acquired under the name of the principal.

(6) On February 27, 2007, the largestCC delayed the payment of the above purchase price, and paid the amount of KRW 400 million upon reduction of KRW 100,000,000, and had the KimA make a registration of transfer of ownership in its own name.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2-1.2, Evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5-1, 2, evidence No. 6, evidence No. 7, evidence No. 9, evidence No. 13, evidence No. 14-1, 2, evidence No. 14-2, evidence No. 15, evidence No. 24, evidence No. 26, evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, testimony No. 4, and purport of the whole pleadings]

D. Determination

According to the above facts, although the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in the joint name with his mother, it is anticipated that the Plaintiff would actually use the instant real estate independently and make profits therefrom, and that it would be difficult to extend the repayment of the loan from the creditor due to the aggravation of business management, and that there would be concerns that the Plaintiff would cause seizure from the creditor due to the aggravation of business management, and that it would be difficult to extend the repayment of the loan, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate in succession to the B and the MaximumCC, who is the spouse, and made the instant loan take over the instant loan in one-half order, and made it possible to have it take over the instant loan, but the amount of the loan was deducted from the purchase price. However, it appears that the Plaintiff acquired the instant loan in the sole name of the largestCC, which is recognized as having economic power in terms of the internal policy of the Bank, with the amount of the instant loan

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, the disposition of this case, based on the premise that the Plaintiff was donated to the largestCC by being exempted from the debt equivalent to the loan of this case, is unlawful. The Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it shall be decided as per Disposition.