Cho Jae-chul201 Jeon 1188 (Law No. 111, 06.02)

It is difficult to see that the property is returned after being entrusted with the title of the property.

In order to obtain a successful bid of auction real estate, it is difficult to view that the real estate was returned after being entrusted with the title of ownership on the real estate which is deferred by the fact that the purchase, the highest bid price, and the payment of the sale price in its name in the auction procedure.

2011Guhap1745 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

EAA

Head of Dong Tax Office

November 24, 2011

December 8, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 39,233,410 against the Plaintiff on March 4, 2011 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 2007, the Plaintiff’s father, Nonparty 2 sold 00 0,168 m2,000 m2,000 m2,748 m2,000 m2,700 m2,500 m2,700 m22,500 m2 in each of the instant sales proceeds (hereinafter “the instant sales proceeds”).

B. The non-party, the plaintiff's living together, was awarded each of the above real estate in his name at the voluntary auction procedure (Cheongju District Court 2006ta21425, Cheongju District Court 2006) on the same 000-0 m200 m2,332 m2, such as the 000 m200 m2,000 m2,000 m2,143 m2 (the sum of the above real estate from the following m2,000 m2,000 m209 m209 m2,084 m200 m3,00 m2,00 m2,000 m3,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m3,000 m27, 207.

C. Pursuant to the Plaintiff on January 22, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer for the reasons of the sale on June 9, 2008 from the non-party E on the purchase on June 16, 2008, Chungcheongbuk-do, which completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reasons of the sale on June 16, 2008, 3,000 m200 m2,084 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,143 m2,143 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m2,00 m3,00 m3,00 m25,000 m3,000 m25.

D. The head of the Pakistan Tax Office: (a) deemed that DaD donated 191,250,000 won paid as the sales price for the instant auction real estate from sexualB; (b) imposed gift tax on DaD; and (c) notified the Defendant, who is the tax office under the jurisdiction of the Plaintiff, to the effect that the Plaintiff was suspected of being donated DoD.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation on the Plaintiff, and deemed that the Plaintiff was donated the instant real estate from MaD and imposed gift tax amounting to KRW 39,233,410 on the Plaintiff on March 4, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

F. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal. On June 2, 2011, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that “the tax base and the amount of tax are corrected according to the result of re-inspection by examining who is the actual successful bidder of the instant auction real estate.” Accordingly, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant disposition was justifiable upon re-inspection.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 14 and each entry of Gap evidence 1 to Eul 14 (including each number)

The purport of the whole

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

DaD, the plaintiff's birth, was awarded a successful bid for the auction real estate in his name on behalf of the plaintiff who is well aware of the auction procedure, and returned the auction real estate to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff paid a loan of KRW 100 million out of the sales price to the SungB, the disposition of this case on the premise that the plaintiff received a donation of this case from SungB was illegal.

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Determination

In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, evidence No. 15, No. 16, No. 2, and No. 16, the following circumstances revealed by the Plaintiff’s request for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate, i.e.,, the declaration of highest price and the payment of the sale price in its name in order to obtain the auction real estate, and ii) Da-B had paid the sale price for the auction real estate in its name, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Da-1, Da-2, Da-2, Do-2, Do-2, Do-2, Do-3, Do-2, Do-2, Do-3, Do-2, Do-2, Do-2, Do-3, Do-2, Do-3, Do-2, Do-3, Do-3, Do-1, Do-2, Do-3, Do-1, Do-2, Do-3, Do-2, Do-

3.In conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.