The validity of the main disposition of this case as a donation for repayment of the Plaintiff’s additional loan

Although the Plaintiff asserted that the money that the Plaintiff disposed of real estate held in title trust to his wife was deposited into the Plaintiff’s division account, the imposition of gift tax of this case is lawful because there is no evidence to admit the Plaintiff

Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act and Article 31 of the same Act

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 of imposing gift tax of KRW 47,600,000 on the Plaintiff on September 4, 2005, in excess of KRW 11,20,000, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the instant disposition

A. On December 27, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on the grounds of sale and purchase on November 12, 2001, with respect to ○○○○ Dong 209-21, 209-21, 4,728 square meters on December 27, 2001. On the same day, the Plaintiff was granted a loan of KRW 250,000,000,000 from ○○ Bank as collateral for the foregoing collateral security on December 28, 2001.

B. On February 14, 2003, the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest of the above loan to the National Bank.

However, on February 13, 2003, the Plaintiff, who was his father, had Nonparty Park ○○, repaid the principal and interest of the above loan amounting to KRW 200,00,000, and KRW 50,200,000, which was withdrawn from the national bank’s deposit account.

C. On September 4, 2005, the Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff donated the said money to Park○○○; and (b) imposed and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 47,000,000 of gift tax (hereinafter “instant disposition of imposition”); (c) [the grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute; (d) No. 8-9, No. 8-2, No. 3, No. 4-1, and No. 4-2; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Whether the instant taxation disposition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 5, 2002, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 140,000,000 out of the proceeds from the disposal of real estate held in title by the Plaintiff to ○○○○○○ on the part of his wife. On February 14, 2003, when the Plaintiff repaid the principal and interest of a loan to ○○ Bank on February 14, 2003, there are KRW 140,000, which the Plaintiff kept in custody of ○○○○○.

Therefore, the part of the instant disposition that exceeds KRW 11,200,000 among the instant disposition imposing tax on KRW 110,000,000,000, excluding KRW 140,000,000,000.

(b) Fact of recognition;

(1) On November 2, 2002, the Plaintiff’s wife Nonparty Red○○ concluded a sales contract with Nonparty ○○○ on the land and building of gas stations located in ○○○○○-Eup, ○○○○, ○○○, ○○-si, 293-3, 4, and 6, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 6th day of the same month.

(2) On November 5, 2002, KRW 140,000 was paid to the agricultural bank account of Nonparty Park ○○○.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 7, Gap evidence 8-1 through 8, Eul evidence 4-3, the purport of whole pleadings]

C. Determination

B. The facts of recognition of paragraph (1) alone are insufficient to recognize that KRW 140,00,000 deposited in the agricultural bank account of Park Poe-○ on November 5, 2002 was money entrusted to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff received KRW 140,00,000 when receiving KRW 250,000,000 from Park Il-○ around February 14, 2003, including KRW 140,000 when receiving KRW 250,000,000.

Therefore, the plaintiff's 250,000,000 won received from Gab○ on February 14, 2003 constitutes a gift, and the defendant's disposition imposing gift tax is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

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