early 209 Heavy2148 (2010.08)

The presumption of gift is lawful because the spouse, etc. had sufficient financial capacity to give a donation.

It is difficult to conclude that the funds acquired based on the loan are merely borrowed money because it is not stated in the original account book that the loan was repaid, and it is reasonable to impose tax on the presumption that the loan was given because the spouse, etc. had sufficient financial capacity to donate the funds.

2012Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax;

LAA

Head of the District Tax Office

December 14, 2012

February 15, 2013

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part on the imposition of gift tax on the BB stock company’s 20,000 shares and the CC’s 23,760 shares and 73,760 shares acquisition funds shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant's disposition of gift tax imposed on the plaintiff on January 13, 2009, as shown in the separate sheet No. 1, 2009 (the statement in the complaint " January 14, 2009" seems to be written in writing).

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) On January 13, 2009, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that the Plaintiff acquired the same property as the list on the gift subject to attached Table 1, or repaid its debt to financial institutions; and (b) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s property was presumed to have been donated from YD, the husband of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff determined and notified the gift tax amount of KRW 000,000 in total as shown in attached Table 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition” except for the portion on which BB Co., Ltd. shares 20,000 acquisition funds andCC imposed gift tax on the shares acquired 23,760 shares in the United Nations CFC Co., Ltd. shares; and (c) on April 10, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 10, 2009 (excluding the gift tax on the shares acquisition funds in this case); and (d) on September 8, 2010, the Tax Tribunal corrected the estimated tax base and amount of the gift (hereinafter referred to be corrected).

C. Around March 8, 2011, the Defendant conducted a reinvestigation pursuant to the above administrative appeals decision, and subsequently corrected the gift tax of KRW 000 in total, but the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal again on March 21, 201, and the Tax Tribunal decided on November 25, 201 that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 00 from BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BB”) from May 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006 for the period from May 1, 2005 to used KRW 00 for the acquisition of property and the repayment of debts, and that it should be deducted from the donated property (hereinafter “the second correction”).

D. On December 1, 2011, the Defendant, according to the above decision on administrative appeal, reduced and corrected gift tax amount of KRW 000 in total, and the final tax remaining after the decision on administrative appeal and reduction and correction two times in the instant disposition are as stated in attached Table 1 among the details of taxation.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 19, and Eul evidence 1 through 3 (if any, including the number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit is lawful;

In the lawsuit of this case ex officio, the following facts are taken into account: (a) whether the portion of gift tax on the funds for acquiring stocks of this case is lawful; and (b) the defendant, on January 13, 2009, issued a separate disposition as to the funds for acquiring BB stocks of 20,000 on May 28, 2003, and the funds for acquiring 23,760 shares of CC Co., Ltd on March 27, 2004; (b) the plaintiff filed an administrative appeal on April 10, 2009 and March 21, 201 without excluding the portion of gift tax on the funds for acquiring stocks of this case; and (c) the period for filing an administrative appeal against the plaintiff on February 22, 2012, including the portion of gift tax on the funds for acquiring stocks of this case, and (d) the period for filing an administrative appeal against the plaintiff on February 22, 2009.

3. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

After graduating from high school, the plaintiff collected 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 00 won and 0.0 won and 00 won and 0.0 won and 00 won and 0.0 won and 00 won and 10.0 won and 0.0 won and 00 won and 0.0 won and 1 other than 0.0 won and 1 other than 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 1 other than 0.0 won and 0.0 won and 1 other than 0.0 won and less than 0.0 won and more than 0.0 won and more than 0.0 won and more than 0.0.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Table 2 shall be as stated in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

앞서 든 증거들과 갑 제3 내지 5호증， 을 제4 내지 6호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체 의 취지를 종합하면，① 원고의 남편인 박DD은 2001. 2. 16. 별지1 과세내역 순번1 증여대상 기재의 삼척시 OO동 000 외 1필지 대지 및 지상 건물을 000원에 매수하는 계약을 체결하였다가 2001. 5. 11. 매수인을 원고로 변경하고 2011. 8. 20. 위 부동산에 관하여 소유권이전등기를 마쳤고， 피고는 위 취득자금 000원에 대하여 증여세000원을 부과 ・ 고지한 사실，② 원고는 OO시 OO동 000 및 지상 건물， OO시 OO동 000외 2필지에 있는 OO터미널을 2005. 4. 18. 000원에 경락받았는데， 피고는 그 경락대금 중 금융기관에서 차입한 000원을 제외한 000원에 관하여 증여세를 부과하였다가， 그 중 BBBB부터 차용한 000원은 이후 원고가 OO은행으로부터 받은 대출금 000원(2008. 1. 18. 1，000원 및 2008. 9. 19. 1，000원)으로 변제하였다는 이유로 이 사건 제2차 경정으로 이 사건 처분의 대상에서 제외하여 결국에는 증여세 000원을 부과 ・ 고지하게 된 사실，③ 원고는 위와 같이 OO터미널을 경락받으며 금융기관으로부터 차입 한 000원을 2005. 9. 20. 000 원， 2005. 12. 27. 000원， 2006. 8. 31. 000원을 변제하였고， 피고는 위 변제금에 대하여 각 증여세 000원， 000원， 000원을 부과하였다가， 그 중 BBBB로부터 2005. 9. 13. 000원을， 2006. 8. 31. 000 원을 각 차용하여 위 대출금의 변제에 사용하였고， 이후 원고가 OO은행으로부터 받은 대출금 000원(2008. 1. 18. 000원 및 2008. 9. 19. 000원)으로 변제하였다는 이유로 이 사건 제2차 경정으로 이 사건 처분에서 제외하여 결국에는 별지1 과세내역 기재와 같이 증여세를 부과 • 고지하게 된 사실，④중부지방국세청장은 원고에 대하여 2008. 1. 10.부터 2008. 5. 22.까지 재산취득자금출처조사를 하면서 원고에게 4회(2008. 1. 15. 1차， 2008. 1. 30. 2차， 2008. 2. 11. 3차， 2008. 3. 25. 4차)에 걸쳐서 재산취득자금에 대한 자금출처 소명자료를 제출할 것을 요 구한 사실，⑤ BBB은 2003. 5. 28.경 개업하여 삼척시 근덕면 OO리 산 000에서 건설업과 서비스업(콘도 및 레저시설 운영업)을 하는 법인으로 그 재무제표에 따르면， 2005년 말경 자산이 000원(토지 가 000원， 건설중인 자산이 000원， 기타 000원)， 부채가 000원{미지급금 000원， 단기 차입금 000원， 장기 차입금 000원(박NN 000원， 최MM 000원， PP기공 주식회사 000원}이고， 2006년도 말경 자산이 000원(토지가 000원， 건설중인 자산이 000원， 기타 000원)， 부채가 000원{미지 급금 000원， 단기 차입금 000원， 장기 차입금 000원(박OO 000원， 최 MM 000원， OO기공 주식회사 000원}이 며 ， 2005년 및 2006년 지분소유구조는 발행주석 총수 중 원고의 배우자인 박DD이 30%， 원고가 20%， 원고의 아들인 박OO가 10%， 기타가 40%를 소유하고 있었던 사실，⑥ 박DD이 2000. 12. 31. 이전에 취득하여 2006. 12. 31.까지 소유하고 있는 부동산은 총 34필지로서 2001. 1. 1.자 개별공시자가에 따른 그 가액은 합계 000원이고， 2001. 1. 1.부터 2006. 12. 31.까지 15필지의 부동산을 추가로 취득하였을 뿐만 아 니라 그 외 2005. 12. 31. 기준으로 4개 업체의 주식 합계 169，560주를 보유하여 그 액면가액의 합계는 000원에 이르고， 기타 근로소득도 있는 사실，⑦ 원고가 1991. 1. 28. 전남 여수시에서 건설기계도급 및 대여업을 하는 오동중기를 운영하다가 1993. 9. 30. 폐업하였고， 그 기간동안 부가가치세 합계 000원을 납부한 사실，⑧ 원고가 1992. 4. 16.부터 충남 천안시에서 건설기계도급 빛 대여업을 하는 QQ중기를 운영하다가 1996. 6. 30. 폐업하였는데， 그 기간동안 납부한 부가가치세는 없는 사실，⑨ 원고는 동생 최RR의 명의로 1994. 4. 1.부터 대전에서 SSSS라는 상호로 의류 소매업을 하다가 1997. 7. 22. 폐업하였고， 그 기간동안 부가가치세 합계 000원 을 납부한 사실，⑩ 원고 명의의 사업소득금액은 1993년 000원， 2005년 000원， 2006년 000원， 2007년 0000원 합계 000완인 사실，⑪ 원고는 위 QQ중기룰 운영할 당시 건설기계를 할부로 구입하면서 서울보증보험과 사이에 보험계약을 채결하였고，건설기계 대여사업의 부진으로 할부금을 납부하지 못 하여 서울보증보험이 1993. 12. 31.경 할부금을 대납하기에 이르렀는데， 원고가 서울보증보험의 구상금을 변제하지 못하여 선용불량자가 된 사실 등을 인정할 수 있다.

D. Determination

In principle, since the tax authority established the facts of donation of the Plaintiff’s property, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was given a donation to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff’s financial transaction was due to the lack of any specific occupation at the time of the acquisition of the property, and that the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have received a donation from another person unless there are special circumstances. However, it is reasonable to presume that the Plaintiff was given a donation to the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff had no occupation or income, and that the Plaintiff had no other income for the first time after the loan was made available to the Plaintiff, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to prove that there was a financial transaction for the first time after the loan was made by the Plaintiff. Considering that there was no other person’s financial transaction for the first time, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff was given a donation for the first time after the loan was made available to the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 96Nu9874, Nov. 14, 197; Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3680, Apr. 26, 20197).

4. Conclusion

In this case, the part of the disposition imposing gift tax on the acquisition fund of this case among the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and the remaining claim of the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.