early 2011west 2692 (Law No. 2799, 201)

Deposit of money for transfer in another person's passbook shall constitute donation, except in extenuating circumstances.

In special circumstances, such as withdrawal of deposits and deposits, etc. in the name of the taxpayer are conducted for any purpose other than donation, the necessity of proof is the taxpayer, and there is no reason to keep and manage the money through the East that resides in Seoul, and thus, gift tax is legitimate.

2011Guhap34023 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Category XX

Head of the Do Tax Office

October 31, 2012

November 30, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax of KRW 000 against the Plaintiff on July 1, 201 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 2009, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred 281m2 to Busan Urban Corporation the Busan Urban Transportation Daegu 1038-4 site; (b) 1038-6m218m2 and 100m2 of the same site; (c) around that time, the Plaintiff transferred 00 won out of the transfer price to the Busan Urban Corporation via the Agricultural Cooperative Account in its name.

B. However, among 000 won deposited as above, 000 won (hereinafter “the key amount of this case”) was transferred to the agricultural bank account in the Plaintiff’s name on June 3, 2009.

C. Meanwhile, on July 2010, the director of Busan Regional Tax Office confirmed the fact of the substitute payment as a result of the investigation of the tracking of delinquent property against the A, and on June 3, 2009, the head of Busan Regional Tax Office deemed that the AA donated KRW 000 to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the fact as taxation data.

D. Accordingly, on July 1, 201, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000, gift tax reverted to the year 2009, according to the gift of the key amount of the instant case (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 20, 201, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on September 27, 201.

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

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On June 1, 2009, the Plaintiff heard the account number of the head of the Tong to pay 000 won of the borrowed amount from the AA and knew the same. However, on June 3, 2009, the key amount of the instant case was transferred to the account in the name of the Plaintiff regardless of the Plaintiff’s intent. However, as long as the transferred amount was withdrawn and transferred from June 11, 2009 to September 8, 2009, and was given to the person who instructed the A or the A, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been donated from the A, the instant disposition should be revoked.

1) Withdrawal of 00 won in cash on June 11, 2009

On June 11, 2009, AA withdrawn KRW 000,000,000,000,000,000,000 in Seoul for the sick Draft of Category BB, which is his birth and the Plaintiff’s small OB.

2) Withdrawal of 00 won in cash on June 12, 2009

The AA withdrawn on June 12, 2009 in cash.

3) Replacement of KRW 000 on July 17, 2009

On July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff received a remittance order from the Chapter AA, withdrawn KRW 000 and remitted it to the Chapter B.

4) Withdrawal from July 17, 2009 to August 5, 2009

According to the direction of Section A, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 000 on July 17, 2009, KRW 00 on August 3, 2009, KRW 00 on August 4, 2009, KRW 00 on August 4, 2009, and KRW 00 on August 5, 2009 in cash, and delivered it to Section A, respectively.

5) Withdrawal of KRW 000 on August 11, 2009

The AA withdrawn 000 won on August 11, 2009, and the Plaintiff withdrawn 000 won on the same day according to the direction of the AA on the same day and transferred the account transfer to anyone.

6) On August 27, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000 to AA in the name of doorCC in accordance with the direction of the AA on August 27, 2009.

7) Cash withdrawal on September 7, 2009 and September 8, 2009

The Plaintiff withdrawn 00 won on September 7, 2009 and 000 won on September 8, 2009 in cash in accordance with the direction of Section A, and delivered it to Section A, respectively.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax imposition, as long as the 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 name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, etc. for purposes other than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

In light of the following circumstances, as seen earlier, as long as the issue amount of this case was withdrawn from the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff and deposited in the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff, the above amount is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff. Thus, special circumstances that the deposit of the above amount was made for any purpose other than the gift for the purpose of keeping it in custody must be proved by the Plaintiff. In light of the following circumstances known through the entire purport of the statement and oral argument of the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4, No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 5-2, No. 6, No. 7, No. 8-1, and No. 9-1 through No. 4, No. 10-1, No. 2, and No. 111-2, and No. 1, and No. 10-1, and No. 111-2, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the deposited amount was returned to A after the issue amount for the purpose of keeping it.

1) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, even though it is recognized that the sum of KRW 000 has been withdrawn in cash from the agricultural bank account in the name of the plaintiff nine times from June 11, 2009 to September 8, 2009, it cannot be seen that there is no objective evidence to prove the source of the above money, nor there is a circumstance that the above 00 won should be returned through the method of cash withdrawal, which is not a method of check withdrawal or account transfer.

2) On July 17, 2009, 000 won deposited as substitute and 000 won deposited as substitute on August 11, 2009 are not only Category A, but also the reason why each of the above amounts was remitted is unclear.

3) The Plaintiff asserted that, in accordance with the direction of the AA on August 27, 2009, a creditor of the AA transferred KRW 000 to the LCC. However, in light of the testimony of the LCC as to the circumstances, etc. during which the LCC lent KRW 00 to the LA, the testimony of the LCC is not reliable.

4) The AA was residing in Busan and the Plaintiff, respectively, and there was no reason to keep and manage the amount of KRW 000,000 through the Plaintiff, even though the LA had suffered inconvenience in street.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.