Seocho 209west 1716 (Law No. 30, 2009)

be presumed to be a donation if the deposit is withdrawn and deposited into the account in the name of the taxpayer.

As long as the deposit in the name of a donor is withdrawn and the deposit is revealed to have been made in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. As such, the Plaintiff’s deposit is deemed to have been withdrawn from the head of the Tong-ro division’s account and was used after being deposited in

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The Defendant limited to December 4, 2008 against the Plaintiff:

1. Disposition on imposition of KRW 28,700,000 on gift tax imposed by the deceased Jeong on August 29, 2003 by deeming that it donated KRW 100,000,00 to the Plaintiff on August 29, 200;

2. Disposition of imposition of KRW 29,019,080 on gift tax imposed by ParkB, on August 29, 2003, recognizing that it donated KRW 100,000,00 to the Plaintiff;

3. The portion exceeding KRW 79,46,727 of the disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 99,941,710, which was imposed by ParkB, on May 28, 2007, by deeming that it donated KRW 242,80,00 to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2007;

4. The imposition of KRW 63,594,390 of the gift tax imposed by ParkB on the Plaintiff on June 7, 2007 by deeming that it donated KRW 121,89,93 to the Plaintiff on June 7, 2007 is revoked (the imposition of KRW 28,700,000 as KRW 28,70,380 as KRW 28,70,380 as a clerical error).

1. Circumstances of the disposition;

A. Around August 29, 2003, the Plaintiff’s father-A deposited KRW 102,347,158 in cash from his national bank account. The Plaintiff’s mother ParkB also deposited KRW 102,347,158 in cash from his national bank account on the same day at around 11:49. The Plaintiff deposited KRW 19,850,000 in his national bank account on the same day. At around 12:05, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 199,850,00 in cash.

B. A. On March 12, 2007, the Plaintiff died on March 12, 2007. The Plaintiff reported the amount of KRW 4,650,675,703 of the inherited property value, KRW 200,000,000 of the disposed property value prior to the commencement of the inheritance, KRW 1,275,154,060 of the paid tax amount, KRW 675,154,060 of the paid tax amount, annual installments tax amount, KRW 600,000 of the paid tax amount, KRW 69.33% of the agreed inheritance shares, KRW 4.12% of the agreed inheritance, and KRW 26.54% of the Plaintiff’s EastCC.

C. The Plaintiff received respectively a total of KRW 242,80,000 from ParkB on May 28, 2007 and KRW 200,00,000,000, and KRW 150,000 on June 7, 2007.

D. On October 16, 2007, the Plaintiff paid 682,040,630 won of inheritance tax (i.e., 675,154,060 won of tax paid by self-return + 6,886,570 won of tax paid by self-return + 6,886,570 won of tax paid by self-return).

E. On October 20, 2008, the director of the regional tax office of 00,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 'the first amount') from MaA on August 29, 2003 and 100,000,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 'the second amount') from GaB from GaB on August 29, 2003, and he received each donation from GaB on May 28, 2007. The director of the regional tax office of 0,000 won (hereinafter referred to as 'the third amount'), from GaB on June 7, 2007, notified the Defendant of each donation.

F. On December 4, 2008, the Defendant determined and notified each gift tax of KRW 28,700,380 for the first amount, KRW 29,019,080 for the second amount, KRW 30 for the third amount, KRW 99,941,710 for the third amount, KRW 77,436,930 for the fourth amount (hereinafter “the first disposition”).

G. On March 21, 2009, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the initial disposition, and the Tax Tribunal filed a tax appeal on March 21, 2009. On June 30, 2009, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to correct the tax base and tax amount by 28,100,070 won (=payment of inheritance tax 682,040,630 won and 4.12% of the inheritance shares of ParkB) to the effect that ParkB paid his inheritance tax. Therefore, the imposition of gift tax of KRW 77,436,930 on the amount of 4 that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff was excluded from KRW 28,10,070 of inheritance tax paid by ParkB from the amount of 4, and that the remainder of the appeal is dismissed.

H. On July 14, 2009, the Defendant reduced or corrected the amount of KRW 121,89,930, which was the remainder after deducting KRW 28,100,070 from the amount of KRW 4 from the amount of KRW 121,89,930 (i.e., KRW 150,000, KRW 28,100,070 - KRW 28,100,070; hereinafter referred to as "amount of KRW 5") by imposing gift tax of KRW 63,594,390 (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of this case") on the Plaintiff on July 14, 209.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 5, 8, 9, 10 evidence (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the dispositions of the instant case are legal.

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Claim as to 1 and 2 amount

(A) On August 29, 2003, the Plaintiff did not receive the amount of Nos. 1 and 2 from the AA and ParkB.

(B) Even if the Plaintiff received money Nos. 1 and 2 from AA and BB, it is not a donation. The Plaintiff had the Plaintiff keep the Plaintiff’s ○○○○○○-dong 49-1 and its ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as “○○-dong real estate”)’s deposit and borrowed money, which was paid to the Plaintiff. The amount of custody was over KRW 200,000,000. The Plaintiff received the money Nos. 1 and 2 as part of the said custody amount.

(2) Claim on 3 and 5 amount

(A) ParkB is jointly and severally liable to pay inheritance tax with the Plaintiff and JeongCC, a co-inheritors within the limit of 210 million won, which is one of his/her own shares in inheritance. Therefore, from among the 200 million won inherited by ParkB, KRW 171,89,930 (= KRW 200,000, KRW 28,100,000 - KRW 28,000), which is jointly and severally liable to pay by ParkB shall be deemed to have been paid the inheritance tax. Accordingly, the portion of KRW 171,89,930 out of KRW 3,5 should be excluded from the gift tax base.

(B) Of the amounts of KRW 3,50,000, 2000,000, the Plaintiff did not receive a donation from ParkB. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 200,000,000 from ParkB to pay inheritance tax, and the Plaintiff’s portion of KRW 200,00,000 should be excluded from the gift tax base.

B. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Reversion of burden of proof

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, 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 the 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 other purpose than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997; 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

(2) As to the assertion on the amount Nos. 1 and 2

(A) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 6 (including paper numbers):

① On August 29, 2003, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 276,465,913, and KRW 320,000,00 for the term deposit cancellation money and KRW 199,850,000 for one’s own bank account. On January 1, 200, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 199,850,000 in cash as set forth in the above subparagraphs. On August 29, 2003, the Plaintiff withdrawn eight copies of the face value check from one’s own bank account.

② On September 24, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased at KRW 3,000,00,000 the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 6/7 of the △△△△△△△△△△, 54-1 land and the 5th floor building on its ground (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△”), and paid eight copies of the check withdrawn as above to the seller.

(B) In light of the above facts, it can be confirmed that the Plaintiff received and deposited the amount of KRW 150,000 from the Plaintiff’s parents’ bank account in cash on the same day, and deposited the amount of KRW 20,000 in the Plaintiff’s bank account in cash on the same day, and the Plaintiff did not explain to the Plaintiff on the source of KRW 19,850,000 in cash deposited in the Plaintiff’s bank account on the Plaintiff’s own national bank account, it can be confirmed that the Plaintiff received and deposited the amount of KRW 1,20 in his parent’s bank account (However, it appears that the amount of KRW 150,00 has been deposited as a matter of fee, etc.). Ultimately, the amount of KRW 1,2 is presumed that the Plaintiff received and deposited the amount of KRW 1,850,00 in the Plaintiff’s bank account from Jung and ParkB respectively.

(C) In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the ○○○○ Real Estate that was held in custody by the Party A and ParkB was returned with the deposit and the difference, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of ParkB was not submitted by ParkB from the lessee, such as deposit and financial data received from the lessee, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the 1 and 2 amount was returned with the deposit and the difference in the deposit and the rent in the real estate of ○○○○○ Real Estate. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(D) Sub-committee

Therefore, the above argument that the amount Nos. 1 and 2 was not donated is without merit.

(3) As to the assertion on the amount of paragraphs 3 and 5

(A) The written evidence No. 2 is insufficient to recognize that ParkB paid KRW 171,89,930 (= KRW 200,000,000 - KRW 28,100,070), which is recognized by the Tax Tribunal as having paid the ParkB’s inheritance tax among KRW 200,000,000 inherited by the ParkB, was paid as inheritance tax under which he/she is jointly and severally liable to pay, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(나) 원고가 박BB로부터 제3, 5금액 중 2억 원을 차용하였다는 원고의 주장에 부합 하는 듯한 증인 박BB의 증언은 원고가 기존에 주장하던 내용과 배치되고 달리 객관 적인 증거에 의하여 뒷받침되지 아니하는 점 등에 비추어 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 이 법원의 국민은행 ◇◇지점장, 외환은행 ♤♤동지점장에 대한 각 사실조회결과만으로는 이를 인정하기에 부족하며, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

(C) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the above argument that the amount of Nos. 3 and 5 was not donated is without merit.

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.