Article 2 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not stipulate that the whole deposit of a donor recognized as a donor shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.

Article 2(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act only provides a comprehensive principle of donation that where a person transfers property to another person or increases another person's property by direct or indirect means, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of the transaction, and does not provide that the entire amount of the deposit withdrawn by the donor shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer.

Article 2 (3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu66891

Kim*

Head of the tax office;

Part of Rotations

May 17, 2016

May 31, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are dismissed, respectively.

2. The appeal costs and incidental appeal costs shall be borne respectively by each person;

1. Purport of claim

The Defendant’s gift tax amounting to KRW 147,350,820 on March 12, 2014 and KRW 238,385,05,050 on the Plaintiff.

Each disposition of imposition shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revoked part shall be dismissed.

3. Purport of incidental appeal;

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The part of the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 147,350,820 (including penalty tax) imposed on the plaintiff on March 12, 2014 and KRW 214,63,962 of the disposition of imposition of KRW 65,816,868 and inheritance tax of KRW 238,385,05,050 (including penalty tax) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and this case’s reasoning is cited, as it is stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any addition as follows.

A. The height part

○○ Decision No. 5th 17 and 18th e) of the first instance court Decision, the transfer value of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff is not verified, but other land part**** 50- ** * 50-4 land, Seoul*** 3** 3*-4 land, Seoul** * * * 2*** 2*-2* land, fathercheonwon** * * 1-3* land should be additionally deducted from the value of donated property, the sum of the published land values at the time of the transfer.

As to the fact that the transfer price of the land owned by the Plaintiff was additionally deposited in each of the instant accounts in addition to the fact that the Defendant recognized mutual aid from Class 6 to Class 10 of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff must prove that the transfer price of the land owned by the Plaintiff was additionally deposited in each of the instant accounts. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s transfer price was the officially announced price at the time of transfer of other land owned by the Plaintiff, the amount of actual transfer price, and the amount of transfer

○ Rule 38,00,000 of the first instance judgment No. 18 shall read “380,000,000”

B. Additional parts

Under the 12th judgment of the first instance court, the Defendant’s money in each of the instant accounts is deemed as the property of the inheritee since it was formed by the inheritee’s contribution. Since some of them were transferred to the Plaintiff’s account or acquired real estate, or used for the Plaintiff’s payment of taxes to be paid, the said money is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff, and even if it is not presumed to have been donated, the money transferred free of charge to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be deemed as a donation. Thus, the Plaintiff should not be deemed as a donation only for some of the amount withdrawn from the passbook. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the money, other than that revealed to have increased the Plaintiff’s property, was used by the decedent for any other purpose. Furthermore, Article 2(3) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act does not apply to the Plaintiff’s transfer or increase of property to another person by direct or indirect means. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the money deposited in the account constituted a gift and gift under the name of each of the Plaintiff.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are groundless.

each of them is dismissed.