Seoul Administrative Court 2017Guhap6907 (2018.06)

The sole fact that money was withdrawn cannot be recognized as a cash loan for consumption.

There is no evidence to prove that it has been used as educational expenses, and it is possible to recognize the settlement and withdrawal of the spouse's credit card, but such circumstance alone can not be proved or recognized as a monetary loan for consumption.

2018Nu5693 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

leAA

○ Head of tax office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap6907 decided July 06, 2018

March 30, 2018

April 20, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant's inheritance tax amounting to KRW 26,250,950 (additional tax) that the plaintiff on August 1, 2016.

(including) revoke the disposition of imposition.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this ruling shall be with the exception of dismissal or addition of the following:

Inasmuch as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment, Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, the main sentence of Article 420 of

this shall be quoted.

The "tax account transfer" for 00 2 pages 5 shall be counted as "credit transfer or issuance of a check".

○ 2 pages 8 (the map is excluded from the parallel number of pages) shall be described as “each entry”.

○ The 3rd to 14th parallels are as follows.

[B] We examine whether the first and second amount of Nos. 1 and 2 donated can be viewed as the educational expenses of leap○○.

In this paper, I will examine.

According to the statements in Gap 5 and 6, the plaintiff sent overseas to ○ from around 2013 to 2015.

The facts that gold was paid, and the facts that ○○ was studying in the Republic of Korea around that time. However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that 1, 2 amount was used as educational expenses of le○○○. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on 1, 2 amount of Nos. 1, 2 cannot be viewed as educational expenses of leap○○○. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion on 1, 2 amount of money under different premise cannot be accepted.”

○ 3rd to 16th to 21th is as follows.

[A] According to the statements in Gap's evidence 1, 3, 9, and 11-1 and 2, the plaintiff's mother ○○○

On January 14, 2014, the death of the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Plaintiff’s wife’s wife’s credit card at a funeral hall, etc. on January 14, 2014

16. The fact that the sum of KRW 14,210,650, and the sum of KRW 7,936,800 on January 18, 2014 was settled, and that the sum of KRW 6,222,00 was deposited in the account of Park○○○ on January 18, 2014, and that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 7,167,30 in the account of Park○○ on January 28, 2014. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the sum of KRW 3 in the above facts alone was settled by the decedent, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the sum of KRW 3 cannot be accepted.”

○ 4 pages 1, “A evidence 4 and 10” shall be read as “A evidence 4 and 10 evidence 2”.

○ 4. 6. The following shall be added:

“The Plaintiff repaid the 4 amount by the method of paying the expenses of the inheritee instead of the expenses of the inheritee’s hospital.

The purport of this section is alleged, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the descriptions of Gap evidence 12-1 to 6.

The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be this.

As the conclusion is justified, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered per Disposition.

The decision shall be rendered as above.