Seocho 201J 2033 (O2, 2012)

Unless there are special circumstances, any money in the joint name account is in quasi-joint-ownership or completion-ownership relationship among the joint names.

Even if only a part of the joint nominal owners contributed money, the contributor cannot be deemed the deposit holder of the joint checking account, and it is reasonable to deem that the money in the joint checking account is in a quasi-joint-ownership or a quasi-construction-ownership or completion-ownership relationship, barring any special circumstance, and that the money in the joint checking account is owned one half each.

2012Guhap186777 The revocation of revocation of the imposition of gift tax

United StatesA

The Director of Gangnam District Office

November 30, 2012

January 4, 2013

1. The Defendant’s imposition of KRW 000 (including additional taxes) of gift tax as of July 14, 2004 against the Plaintiff on March 8, 201 and KRW 000 (including additional taxes) of gift tax as of September 30, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

(a) Donation of funds for acquiring containers;

"(1) On July 14, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares in the joint name (i.e., USD 1/2 shares) from 000 ($1/2 shares). The source of the funds to acquire the instant containers is as follows." (ii) The Defendant did not clearly explain to the Plaintiff on March 8, 201, the source of USD 000 is not proved, and the Plaintiff did not have any occupation or income, and acquired 00 won or less from 00 won, and 00 won or more of the gift tax amount is presumed to have been acquired from 00 won or more (including 00 won or more of the gift tax) under Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007), and the Plaintiff acquired 00 won or more of the gift tax amount of USD 200 (000 won or more of the gift tax amount of KRW 100 (00000) of the gift tax amount of this case).

"(1) 원고는 2009. 9.' 30. 유DDDDD과 서울 강남구 OO동 000 아파트 0000호(이하이 사건 아파트|라 한다)를 00000원에 공동명의(각 1/2 지 분)로 취득하였다. 이 사건 아파트의 취득자금 출처는 다음과 같다.",(출처내역 생략)

"(2) The defendant, on March 8, 201, obtained the apartment of this case on the ground that "DD has acquired the apartment of this case" (=the contract amount of KRW 000 + intermediate payment of KRW 000 + some of KRW 000 + interest of KRW 000 + acquisition tax + KRW 000) out of the remainder, and the plaintiff has received DDD's donation of KRW 1/2 shares (=00 - 00 x 1/2 shares) and has acquired the apartment of this case, and 000 won [the amount of gift tax calculated under Article 100 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 19016, Jan. 1, 2010)] and 100 won [the amount of gift tax calculated under Article 100 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 100050, Mar. 16, 201).

The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal on May 6, 2011, and was dismissed by the Tax Tribunal on March 12, 2012.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including household numbers), and Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) As to the first disposition

Since the joint name account is jointly owned by the Plaintiff and UDDDD, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received 1/2 of the amount of withdrawal of the joint name account from UDDDD. Even if it is deemed that it is the sole ownership of DDD in the joint name account, the Plaintiff and UDDD were disposing of the joint ownership immediately after the instant container was acquired, and UDDD used the entire amount of the transfer price, and were repaid with the transfer price of the joint ownership.

(2) As to the second disposition

Since the Plaintiff had real estate rental income from 2005 to 2009, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the instant apartment acquisition fund from the UDDD. Even if the Plaintiff received a donation of the instant apartment acquisition fund from UDDD, the acquisition price of the instant container can not be included in the amount of re-donationd donation, and in this context, there is no gift tax base when the Plaintiff deducts 00 won from the amount of donated property deduction, and there is no gift tax base.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) Account flow;

(A) Account flow related to the acquisition fund of the instant container

① At the time of December 31, 2003, there were USD 000 in the Plaintiff, UDRD-00 bank joint account. Of them, USD 2000 was transferred to the Plaintiff and UDRD- joint account on July 14, 200 [the Plaintiff, UDRD-joint account on the same day, and the check amounting to USD 00 was issued from the second joint account on the same day, and was used as the acquisition fund.

② The Plaintiff and UDDD failed to disclose the source of funds of USD 000 in the joint name account, “(B) OOOOO housing transfer account flow.”

① On July 21, 2004, the Plaintiff and UDRD transferred 'OOOO' (hereinafter 'OOOO' house') to USD 000 (excluding the amount of redemption of bank loans secured by the house). On the same day, the transfer price was deposited into the OOO joint account (Account Number: 000, and hereinafter 'third joint account') of the Plaintiff and UOOO, and ② on July 23, 2004, 00 checks and USD 00 checks were issued respectively. Of them, USD 00 was deposited into the OO's personal account (OO's account on July 23, 2004, and USD 00 was deposited into the O's 000 and US's 000 O's 5 November 5, 2004.

③ On the other hand, transfer margin of KRW 000 was generated from the transfer of OO housing. On May 30, 2005, the Plaintiff reported and paid KRW 000 of transfer income tax calculated based on the transfer margin of KRW 000,000, which is the Plaintiff’s shares (1/2).

(2) The status of real estate acquisition and transfer

(A) The status of the Plaintiff’s acquisition and transfer of real estate in the U.S. is as follows.

(Ommission of Current Status omitted)

(B) The current status of the acquisition of the domestic real estate of the DNADD is as follows.

(Omission of Current Status)

(3) Current income status, etc.

(A) The Plaintiff’s global income declaration details are as follows, and the details of other income activities are not confirmed. In addition, the Plaintiff mainly resided in the United States in order to care for children studying in the United States, and used approximately KRW 000 as living expenses and school expenses on eight occasions from May 3, 2002 to August 1, 2005.

(B) UNDDD is a company that imports golfcar parts and golf course management equipment parts from Japan and sells them to Korea, and is in office as the representative director of KK Engineering and KK KKyang Inc., and global income reported from 2000 to 2003 is about KRW 000 in total and the details of global income declaration after 2005 are as follows.

(Omission of Report)

Upon receipt of a tax investigation, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff did not know about the source of money deposited in the first and second joint account.

"(based on recognition)", "A" to 12, and "B" to 12, and "B" to 3, respectively, and "the purport of the whole pleadings".

(1) As to the first disposition

(A) First of all, with respect to the source of money deposited in the first and second joint account, the Plaintiff was living in the money received from DDD in 2005, and the Plaintiff was not properly aware of the source of money deposited in the first and second joint account or in the first and second joint account. ② On the other hand, DD was reported in global income from 2000 to 2003, and owned more than KRW 00 and more domestic and foreign real estate.Third, in consideration of the fact that there was a money reached USD 00 in the first joint account, and the Plaintiff or UDD was not disclosing its source, the source of money deposited in the first and second joint account is presumed to be U.D.’s funds.

(B) Next, even if only some of the co-owners contribute money to the ownership relationship of money in the first and second joint accounts, it cannot be said that only the contributor is the deposit holder of the joint account, and the money in the joint account is in a quasi-joint-ownership or quasi-construction relationship between the joint names unless there are special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da55908, Oct. 14, 2004; 2000Da70789, Jun. 12, 2001); and 1 and 2 joint accounts are owned by UNDD each, unless there are special circumstances to see that the money in the first and second joint accounts are owned by UNDD.

(C) Ultimately, the Plaintiff received USD 00 (00 x 1/2) from UD and used the money for the acquisition of the instant containers, so it is problematic whether it is a loan for consumption with interest-free amount, and ① The Plaintiff transferred real estate under a joint name since 1995 and acquired other real estate under a joint name (3.(2)(a) ; No. 1997 No. 200, No. 1997, No. 1997, No. 200, No. 1997, No. 200, and No. 200, No. 400, No. 400, and No. 2006, No. 44, that the Plaintiff acquired the money under a separate name from U.O.D. to the Plaintiff at the time of the transfer of the real estate at 0,000, No. 700,000,000.

(2) As to the second disposition

(A) According to the above facts, the plaintiff's acquisition of the apartment of this case with 000 won, and Dodddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

(B) As above, since the Plaintiff did not receive the acquisition fund of the instant containers from the UDD, it is not possible to add the acquisition fund of the instant containers to the taxable amount of gift taxes pursuant to the provisions of the re-donation taxation under Article 47(2) of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. Therefore, the taxable amount of gift taxes is 00 won for the acquisition fund of the instant apartment, and the deduction of 000 won for the deduction amount of donated property under Article 53(1)1 of the amended Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is illegal, and the gift tax base is not nonexistent, and the second disposition based on the premise that the gift tax base exists. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided with the order.