In a case where a deposit is made from a specific person, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated.

Where a donor’s deposit in the name of the donor is deposited in a bank account, etc. in the name of the donor, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, it is necessary to prove that such act was performed for other purposes than donation.

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2013Guhap2550 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

Park AA

Head of Ulsan District Office

September 18, 2014

October 16, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax on the Plaintiff on September 5, 2009 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

"A. On March 28, 2009, head B, the Plaintiff’s wife, sold OOOOOB 211-1 forest 446.678m2 and above-ground trees, etc. toCC Heavy Industries Trade Union in its name for OOOB, OOB, OOB 21-1 forest 446.678m2, etc.," and “B.” The Plaintiff, on March 30, 2009, was paid OOOB out of the above purchase price to the head bank account under his/her name, and on April 3, 2009, received OOOB out of the above purchase price, and the Defendant was donated to the head of OOB on September 5, 2009, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on September 31, 2009 (hereinafter “instant appeal”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-2, 4-1, 9-1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The instant forest land and OOB land and OOB land and 1967-5 of this Ri are the land consisting of DD arboretums. The Plaintiff is the actual operator of DD arboretums, and the land other than the instant forest is also nominal trust with ASEAN and GF. ② The Plaintiff entered into a contract under the name of the Plaintiff, but registered the GGG farm land in the name of the headB, and actually operated by the Plaintiff. ③ The Plaintiff directly managed the instant forest land as well as the instant forest, and was subject to criminal punishment under suspicion of changing the form and quality of the forest. ④ The Plaintiff led the sale of the instant forest without permission and received the sale price from the Plaintiff, ⑤ The Plaintiff did not engage in economic activities, and the Plaintiff owned the instant forest and land, other than the instant forest and land, and the Plaintiff was sufficiently aware that the Plaintiff actually owned the instant real estate in the name of the head of HB under the name of the land under title trust and operated the instant forest and land under the name of the Plaintiff.

B. Relevant statutes

The judgment is as shown in the attached Form 3.0.0.

1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a gift tax disposition, insofar as a deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the taxpayer’s name, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the taxpayer’s name, etc. were made for purposes other than donation, the need to prove such fact is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9DuOO, Nov. 13, 200

“2) In this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant loans were paid to 10 U.S. 2 and 10 U.S. 1 U.S. o. 2 and 10 U.S. o. 2, U.S. O. 2, U.S. O. 1 and U. 10 U.S. O. 2, U.S. O. 1 and U. 183 m. 183m2 (hereinafter “U. 2, U.S. 1, 1987 m. 2, U.S. 1, 1987 m. 1 and 10 U.S. m. 2, U. O. 25, 201 m. 1 and 100 U.S. m. 2, 201 m. 1 and 100 U.S. m. 2, 2001.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.