2012Guhap40728 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

Hu○ ○

Seoul Gwangjin-gu

Law Firm Taei (Law Firm Taee)

Attorney Park Jong-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

head of Sung Dong Tax Office

Persons who completed the litigation performer, Kimdo-le

July 5, 2013

July 26, 2013

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 9,228,060 against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012 is revoked.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Plaintiff on May 24, 2010 with respect to the purchase and sale of an apartment * 708 dong-dong 1403 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant assessed the value of donated property as KRW 161,00,000, and assessed the value of donated property as KRW 21,665,880 against the Plaintiff on February 6, 2012.

B. On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff appealed and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on May 2, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the Tax Tribunal decided to rectify the tax base and tax amount by taking the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 62,00,00 from the value of donated property less the amount of KRW 62,00,00 from the value of donated property, on the ground that the Plaintiff took over and repaid KRW 62,00,00,000 of the amount of debt of Y○, which was established on the instant real estate, since the Plaintiff was donated the instant real estate from Y○○○, and thus, it is reasonable to deduct the amount from the value of donated property.

C. Accordingly, on September 20, 2012, the Defendant corrected that the Plaintiff’s gift tax of KRW 21,665,880 was reduced from KRW 12,437,820 to KRW 12,437,820 (hereinafter the same shall apply).

6. The disposition of imposition of one's own gift tax of KRW 9,228,060 (=21, 665, KRW 880 - KRW 12,437, and KRW 820) is "the disposition of this case".

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) purchased the instant real estate from Yellow ○ on September 10, 202 to pay KRW 144,00,000 each month for ten (10) years, and thus, the instant disposition based on the premise that the Plaintiff was donated the instant real estate from Yellow ○○○○ upon the premise that it was illegal. (2) Even if the Plaintiff received the instant real estate from Yellow ○○○○○, even if it constitutes a gift with a burden, it constitutes a gift with a burden, and thus, the amount paid by the Plaintiff to Yellow ○○○○, a creditor of Yellow ○○○○, and the amount paid by the Plaintiff to Hyundai Capital Co.,, Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Mod Capital”) and the Plaintiff for gambling should be deducted from the taxable value subject to gift tax.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) He purchased the instant real estate on April 24, 1993, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name. Since then two instances of seizure and provisional seizure were cancelled.

2) On September 11, 2002, yellow ○, the wife of HeMa MaMa MaMa MaMa, received the registration of ownership transfer from He Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma, on the ground of He Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma on August 30, 202. Upon application from He Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma, the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the revocation of the fraudulent act on February 19, 2003 was completed on October 28, 2004 as the right to be preserved and the provisional disposition was completed.

On the 18th day of the same month, the registration of seizure was cancelled on the real estate in this case on several occasions, and the registration was cancelled on the 2005.

3) On November 13, 2009, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the ground of trade reservation on the same day with respect to the instant real estate on the same day. Thereafter, upon the application of the Gul○○’s creditor, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the right

On March 22, 2010, a compulsory auction was commenced for the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff was on June 9, 2010.

In accordance with the above provisional registration, the above decision to commence compulsory sale was revoked ex officio.

4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 63,100,00 in total from September 18, 2012 to January 7, 2013, KRW 69,100,00 in total, and KRW 69,100,00 in total, from October 5, 2007 to March 7, 2012, each month with KRW 1,200,000 in foreign exchange bank accounts (Account Number: 037 - 18- 72344 - 1) in the name of He/she was paid in KRW 69,10,000,00 in total, from September 18, 2012 to January 7, 2013. The amount was most KRW 69,10,000 in total, and KRW 30,00 in most of the above amount was used for the daily living costs of He Ma Ma Ma Ma

5) On July 27, 2010 with respect to the instant real estate, Hyundai Capital was subject to a provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal by treating the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of each fraudulent act as the preserved right. On May 12, 2011, the Plaintiff repaid his/her obligation to Park Sang-gu around May 201, and each of the provisional dispositions was revoked on May 24, 201.

6) Yellow ○○ was liable for the establishment of a collateral security interest of KRW 62,00,000,000, which was secured by the instant real estate. However, around June 201, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of the instant real estate as collateral and repaid all the said debt, and cancelled the registration of the establishment of a collateral security interest of the said real estate.

7) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff borrowed 2,166,00,000 won from the National Bank around 2006, including the sum of 535,00,000 won, 294,000,000 won, and 1,337,000,000 won from the Agricultural Cooperative around 2010, in addition to the amount of the instant real estate loaned as security, from the National Bank around 2006.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 4, and 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from Y○○ in light of the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings. Therefore, the instant disposition based on a different premise is unlawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is with merit.

① Considering the fact that the Plaintiff paid out obligations on the instant real estate and obligations on Park Sang-young with respect to the instant real estate by Yellow○○○, it appears that Yellow○ appears that the Plaintiff had insufficient financial resources to repay his/her obligations, and He/she did not have any regular income other than that received from the Plaintiff.

② The Plaintiff had a substantial reason to conclude a sales contract with the effect that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff’s parents can lead a stable life therein, and that the Plaintiff would regularly pay money to Yellow○○○, because the instant real estate was in unstable condition, such as compulsory execution, seizure, provisional disposition, etc. on several occasions.

We seem to see.

③ At the latest from October 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,200,00 per month from around October 2007. Considering the fact that the Plaintiff had made a provisional registration with respect to the instant real estate for more than two years, and the personal debt amount that the Plaintiff bears during that period, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had continuously paid the amount to the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant merely performed the public morals and the non-support of supporting parents.

④ It may be difficult to view that the aforementioned transactions are similar to the housing pension that received monthly living expenses in old age through the method of a lifelong pension rather than the mere donation without any consideration.

⑤ Even if the Plaintiff’s ground for acquiring the instant real estate is a gift, it is recognized that, at least 69,100,000 won was paid to ○○○ side on deposit, and thus, the part should be deducted from the taxable value of donated property. Furthermore, according to the description of the evidence No. 2, the tax base of the instant disposition is 69,00,000 won, and as seen above, it is apparent that the deduction of KRW 69,100,00 from the taxable value of donated property would be below 0, and thus, the instant disposition cannot be maintained even in this point.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Jae-hoon and decorations

Judges Kang Jeong-hee

Judges Jeon Sung-sung

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.