Seoul Administrative Court-2016-Gu Partnership-52514 ( October 16, 2017)

The Plaintiff’s lack of proof as to the existence of inheritance obligation, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that lack of grounds for imposing gift tax of this case is difficult to accept.

A report on the tax base of gift tax and an dispatch of business, the Plaintiff stated that each of the 1/2 shares in each of the instant commercial buildings was donated, and thus, cannot be deemed to lack the grounds for imposing gift tax.

Article 14 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2017Nu39596 Revocation of Disposition of Levying Gift Tax

oo

o Head of the tax office et al.

July 12, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant disposition is unlawful in violation of the principle of taxation based on the following grounds.

1) The Plaintiff donated part of the 1/2 share acquisition fund of each of the instant commercial buildings from the Deceased in cash, and even if the actual acquisition price of each of the instant 1/2 shares is more than the reported amount that the Plaintiff was originally donated from the Deceased, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have been the Plaintiff’s donation up to the excessive amount.

2) The Plaintiff did not report that the total amount of 1/2 shares in each of the instant commercial buildings was donated to the Plaintiff, and there is no ground to exclude the possibility that the Plaintiff would purchase shares in each of the said commercial buildings by raising funds owned by the Plaintiff. In fact, the Plaintiff was used to acquire shares in the above commercial buildings, which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s shares, out of the sales price of the instant land.

B. Defendant’s assertion

The instant disposition is legitimate on the basis of the Plaintiff’s voluntarily submitted gift tax return, inheritance tax return, various contract on each commercial building of this case, etc., and the actual contract.

C. Determination

"If the plaintiff's 204, 200, 100, 200, 2000, 2000, 2000, 300,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,000,00,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,0,00,00,

3) The Plaintiff asserts that since KRW 297,00,000, which is equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share, was used as part of the acquisition fund of each of the instant commercial buildings, the said amount should be deducted from the value of donated property.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 14, and evidence Nos. 16-1, 2, and 5, the deceased and the plaintiff, Leeo, and Lee bb shared the land of this case with 5/10 shares, 1/10 shares, 1/10 shares, 3/10 shares, and 3/10 shares, respectively. On December 3, 2003, the land of this case was sold to 00,000,000 won to 0,000 won. By March 31, 2004, the above purchase price was paid in full, and the fact that o,o, and oo was deposited into the account in the name of the deceased is recognized.

However, with regard to the fact that ooo,oo, andoowon equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share in the above purchase price was used as a part of the acquisition fund of the Plaintiff’s share in each of the instant commercial buildings, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely by the descriptions of the evidence No. 16-1 through 6, A, A, 17, 20, and 21, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion that the flow of the funds of this case had to be explained differently from the actual one as to the receipt of the Plaintiff’s share out of the purchase price of the land of this case on the premise of the so-called multi-use contract with low sale price as to each of the instant commercial buildings after the above donation, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to clearly explain this part of the funds of this case. Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion that, upon considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to Gap’s evidence No. 14, No. 16-1, and No. 17, it is difficult to view the difference between the sale price of the land of this case received by the deceased and the money of this case to be deposited into the account under the name of the Plaintiff on February 27, 204, since it is difficult for the Plaintiff to clearly explain this part of the funds of this case, it is difficult to view the difference between the money of this case and the money of this case to be deposited into the account under the name of the Plaintiff, and the remaining money of this case as to be deposited into the account No. 300o as to each of this case.

4) Therefore, we cannot find any error in the disposition of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be just and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.