National Tax Service Examination Donation 2010-0013 (20 August 20, 2010)

The presumption of gift is illegal because it is difficult to see that the source of the source of the funds has not been substantiated.

Although there is no room to regard the amount of the lease deposit as a donation because it is difficult to believe that apartment was leased with the lease deposit, it is illegal to levy gift tax on the ground that the reason and uniformity of the disposition of this case are not recognized.

2010Guhap43617 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

IsaA

Head of the tax office;

October 11, 2011

November 10, 201

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 106, 289, and 136 against the Plaintiff on November 11, 2009 is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

It is the same as the disposition.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On January 18, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s Oral BaB acquired the sales right on the 00 EEEEE apartment complex 0000,000 (hereinafter “the apartment 1 of this case”) from HaCC with respect to DD, from HaCC, each of 1/2 shares in 590,62 million won.

B. On August 24, 2004, the Plaintiff and LeeB completed the registration of ownership preservation on each of the apartment units of this case 38.35/149 shares, and received the registration of ownership transfer on the remaining shares from DDD on September 15, 2004, after full payment of the sale price.

C. ① On August 30, 2004, between the Plaintiff and thisB entered into a lease contract with respect to the instant apartment with the competent GG, 40 million won (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) and the term of lease from September 15, 2004 to September 14, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”). ② The Plaintiff received full payment of KRW 400 million (hereinafter “the instant lease deposit”) from the competent GG, and deposited it into the FF bank account in the name of the Plaintiff.

D. On December 6, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the entire share of the BB on the instant apartment (this subparagraph’s share 1) from EB.

E. The Defendant, while the Plaintiff purchased all shares of this case from thisB, did not clearly explain the source of funding for the purchase price, imposed and dismissed KRW 106,289,130,000,000 on November 11, 2009 against the Plaintiff on June 30, 2005, prepared between the Plaintiff and the LeeB as the tax base of KRW 45,720,000 on the sales contract (Evidence A, No. 4, No. 3) signed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 30, 2005, on the ground that the Plaintiff was presumed to have received a donation for the purchase price of this case (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, Gap 6 evidence 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, 4 evidence, Eul 1-4 evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was liable to return the instant lease deposit to the competentG by acquiring the entire equity interest in the instant apartment from the BB, and paid the instant lease deposit received from the competentG with the funds. The instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff is presumed to have donated the amount equivalent to the instant purchase price to the Plaintiff due to unclear source of the payment of the instant purchase price.

(b) relevant statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

Multi-Recognitions

(1) The following disposition documents were presented during the pleadings of the instant case.

(2) The following reporting documents (receipts) were sent during the pleadings of the instant case.

(3) The details of the deposits and withdrawals from each bank account of the Plaintiff, LeeB, Choim and NohH ( husbands of the competentG)

(4) ① From July 13, 2005, thisB resided in Seocho-gu Seoul OOdong II III, III,00-0,000. ② This BB entered into a lease agreement between Park J on August 21, 2006 and Park J on August 21, 2006 with respect to the above IIIII II, with a deposit of KRW 250,000,000,000,000, out of the down payment of KRW 20,000,000,000,000 won for a contract, the remainder of the down payment of KRW 15,000,000,000 won for the remainder of the contract, and KRW 23,000,000,000 won for the remainder of September 29, 2006, and the lease agreement between September 29, 2006 to September 29, 2008.

⑤ From June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff resided in the Republic of Korea from around 00, 200 to 00 KKKK KK apartment, 000 000 dong, and completed the move-in report to the instant apartment on November 2, 2006 (see Evidence A9, 10). (2) LL and maximum M are residing in the instant apartment from November 2, 2006 (Evidence 10, 12).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence and the purport of the whole oral argument

d, Determination

(1) Although the above facts are recognized as follows, (i) the Plaintiff is a joint tenant under the instant lease agreement, and (ii) the Plaintiff was receiving the entire deposit from the NAG and managed it, and (iii) the Plaintiff is between the two parties, and (iv) it is difficult to readily conclude that the sales contract (No. 5, No. 3) and receipts (No. 13 evidence No. 1, No. 13) made between the Plaintiff and the BB were made up after false entry into the account. (iii) The Plaintiff did not withdraw 120,000,000 and 20,000,000 won from the above sales contract and 40,000 won from the above 70,000 won from the above sales contract and 40,000 won from the above 0,000 won from the above 10,000 won from the above 30,000,000 won from the above 30,000,000 won from the intermediate payment account.

(2) Regarding this, the Defendant asserts that, upon examining the source of the lease deposit of this case, 10 million won out of the lease deposit of this case from this BB’s account, the remaining 300 million won was withdrawn from the account of the Plaintiff’s mother, and transferred to Hahhhh, who is the husband of the rightG, the Plaintiff’s husband, it is reasonable to view that the purchase price for the share of this case was derived from MF. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that this case’s lease deposit of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case, i.e., the following circumstances recognized by the above fact, i., e., the Plaintiff’s case’s case’s 100,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff’s mother’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case was not recognized to Hahh, and that the Plaintiff’s case’s case’s lease of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.