Seoul Administrative Court 2014Guhap75957 ( October 24, 2015)

Tax Tribunal 2014Seoul Northern1564 (28 December 2014)

At the time of contribution of real estate to the Foundation, above ground trees are transferred to the Foundation after universal donation together with real estate.

Although there is no special agreement that the gift contract or the sales contract of the instant real estate shall be excluded from the gift contract at the time of contribution to the property of the instant real estate, the instant item is transferred en bloc after being donated to the Plaintiff Foundation along with the real estate, and the instant amount is donated from the Plaintiff Foundation.

Gift tax under Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2015Nu53901 Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax

E. O.O. 1

Head of Nowon Tax Office

on July 24, 2015

December 1, 2015

on 19, 2016

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. On December 2, 2013, the defendant revoked the imposition of KRW 0,000,000 (including additional tax) for the gift tax belonging to the year 2003 against the Plaintiff ○○○ Foundation on March 31, 2014.

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

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Part 9, paragraph 10, " difficult to do", shall be added to the following:

According to the market price appraisal of the real estate in this case at the trial on April 17, 2003, the appraiser presented his opinion that the land is KRW 0,000,000,000, the building is KRW 000,000,000, the total amount of KRW 0,000,000,000 (=0,000,000 + + 000,000,000,000). However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 13 and 25, the appraiser presented the opinion that the market price of the real estate in this case is equivalent to KRW 0,00,00,000.

As a result of the market price appraisal conducted on April 4, 2003 by requesting ○○ Appraisal Corporation for the purpose of a security appraisal, the market price appraisal value of the instant real estate is KRW 0,000,000,000, in total, KRW 0,000,000,000 (= 0,000,000,000 + + 00,000,000,000) in the first instance.

In full view of the fact that there is a significant difference in the market price of the instant item as a result of the market price appraisal of the instant item which ○○○○ entrusted to two appraisers, and that the market price of the instant item around April 25, 201 was merely KRW 00,000,000 or KRW 00,000,000, and other circumstances as seen above, the market price of the instant item is merely KRW 00,000,000 as a result of the market price appraisal of the instant item in the trial, solely on the basis of the result of the market price appraisal of the instant item on the instant real estate at the trial, the market price of the instant real estate is equivalent to KRW 0,00,000 and the value of the instant

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of the reasons. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.