Suwon District Court-2012-Gu Partnership-2550 (2013.09.04)

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 2(3) on an increase in the value of property equivalent to the interest arising from the lending of money to a person who is not a related party

Considering the fact that justifiable grounds exist as non-taxation requirements, even if gift tax is imposed on a monetary free loan between persons who are not a specially related person, the taxpayer can anticipate it pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act as to an increase in property value equivalent to the interest accrued due to monetary free loan between persons who are not a specially related person.

Seoul High Court 2013Nu28437 Revocation of Disposition on Imposition of Gift Tax

The AA

Head of Central Tax Office

Suwon District Court Decision 2012Guhap2550 Decided September 4, 2013

June 27, 2014

October 10, 2014

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The imposition of the gift tax belonging to the year 2006 shall be revoked by the defendant against the plaintiff on June 24, 201, the imposition of the gift tax belonging to the year 2007, the OOO of the gift tax belonging to the year 2008, the OO of the gift tax belonging to the year 2009, the OO of the gift tax belonging to the year 2009, and the OO of the gift tax belonging to the year 2010

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

This judgment is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following matters to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is based on Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the

(1) On face 3, the following shall be added to Chapter 12:

“4) In addition to the amount recognized by the Defendant as the repayment of the instant loan OO won, the Plaintiff paid an additional amount of OO won to the largestB from April 2005 to March 2010, and thus, there was no unpaid amount at the time of the instant disposition. Therefore, the instant disposition based on the premise that the unpaid amount was paid is unlawful.

(2) On pages 10, the following shall be added:

“4) Whether there was no unpaid payment at the time of the instant disposition

가) 갑 제8 내지 12호증 (가지번호 있는 것은 각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재에 의하면 다음 ㉠ 내지 ㉣과 같은 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

㉠ 2005. 4. 20. OOOO원이 원고의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)에서 현금 인출되었고, 최BB의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOO-OOOOOO-OO-OOO)에 같은 날, 같은 금액이 현금 입금되었다. ㉡ 2006. 3. 31. OOOO원, 2006. 4. 11. OOOO원이 원고의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)에서 각 현금 인출되었고, 최BB의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)에 각각 같은 날, 같은 금액이 현금 입금되었다. ㉢ 2007. 8. 13. OOOO원이 원고 명의로 최BB의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)에 이체되었다. ㉣ 2009. 8. 31. 적금액 OOOO원의 원고의 우리은행 적금계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)가 해지되었고, 같은 날 위 금원 상당액이 최BB의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)로 입금되었다. 또한 2010. 3. 23. 예금액 OOOO원의 원고 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)가 해지되었고, 같은 날 위 금원 상당액(OOOO원)이 최BB의 우리은행 계좌(계좌번호 OOOO-OOO-OOOOOO)로 입금되었다.

B) However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 3 and the entire arguments, the following facts may be acknowledged as the material of the materials and materials of the State, which are located within the scope of the State,

㉠ 원고는 2006. 5.경 피고에게 "2003. 10. 17. OO도 OO시 OO CC 목장용지를 OOOO원에 경락받으면서 그 대금 중 OOOO원을 동서인 최BB에게서 차용하였으나 지금까지 원금 OOOO원만을 변제하고 나머지 원금과 이자를 갚지 못하였음을 확인합니다."라는 내용의 확인서를 제출하였다. ㉡ 피고는 2006. 10. 17. 원고에 대한 위 낙찰대금의 자금출처조사 실시결과 최BB으로부터 차용한 OOOO원 중 OOOO원이 미변제원금임을 확인하였고, 위 가)항 기재 금원은 상환금액으로 확인되지 않았다. ㉢ 최BB은 2011. 4. 5. 피고에게 "원고로부터 본인 통장에 입금된 별첨내역의 금액은 본인이 원고에게 대여한 원금 OOOO원에 대한 원금 상환으로 받은 금액이며 별도이자를 받은 사실이 없으므로 본 확인서를 제출합니다."라고 기재한 확인서를 제출하였다. ㉣ 위 확인서에 첨부된 원금상환내역에 의하면, 2009. 8. 경부터 2010. 4.경까지 사이에 10회에 걸쳐 합계 OOOO원을 상환 받았다고 기재 되어 있고, 각 상환금원에 대하여 원고가 입금자로 명시되어 있는 최BB의 예금계좌의 거래내역이 소명자료로 첨부되어 있으며, 위 가)항에서 인정한 금원지급내역은 상환액으로 기재되어 있지 않다. ㉤ 피고는 위 항에서 본 바와 같이 2006. 10. 17.까지 확인된 미변제원금 OOOO원 중 위 항의 OOOO원이 상환되었음을 인정한 후 각 과세연도별 미상환금액에 대한 이자상당액을 증여재산가액으로 보아 이 사건 처분을 하였다. ㉥ 원고는 이 사건 항소심에 이르기 이전까지는 이 사건 차용금에 대한 상환을 위하여 위 가)항 기재 금원을 최BB에게 상환하였다고 주장한 바 없다.

C) According to the facts of recognition of the above paragraph (a) above, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid the claimed amount to the least BB is reliable. However, the Plaintiff did not assert that the Plaintiff paid the above amount to the least BB prior to the arrival of the instant appellate court. The Plaintiff also presented the details of repayment from the Plaintiff on April 5, 201, which was subsequent to the issuance of each of the above amounts, but does not include the above paragraph (a). Furthermore, according to the supporting documents on the details of repayment received from the Plaintiff submitted by the least BB, it can be easily confirmed that the payer was the Plaintiff, while most of the financial transactions in the above paragraph (a) are not directly verified. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above amount was paid to the least BB under the pretext of repayment of the loan in this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part of the loan in this case is without merit.

[5] As to the Plaintiff’s assertion after the date of closing argument in this case

A) The Plaintiff, as amended on January 1, 2013, provides that Article 41-4 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall apply to a non-specially related person with the calculation of the general value of donated property under Article 32, while there was no such provision at the time of the instant disposition. Therefore, even if a monetary loan is granted through the comprehensive donation provision under Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it cannot be calculated on the grounds that there was no such provision as the above amended Act and subordinate statutes, and thus, the instant disposition is unlawful.

B) As seen earlier, the Defendant calculated the value of donated property pursuant to the provisions of Article 41-4 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201).

C) Although Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides for the grounds on which gift tax may be levied on a transaction corresponding to the concept of comprehensive gift, it does not directly provide for the method of calculating the value of donated property acquired through the relevant gift. This seems to be due to the impossibility of the legislative form of comprehensive taxation of gift tax in the case of a variety of different or new types of illegal donations not in the form of gift under the Civil Act. Therefore, in the case of the imposition of gift tax pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the taxation of gift tax pursuant to Article 2(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be made by applying the same or similar tax requirements, type of transaction, economic substance, etc. in calculating the value of donated property, or by applying the same or similar method in an objective and reasonable manner, in calculating the value of donated property.

In the instant case, in light of the content and form of the instant donation, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s measure, calculated as the value of donated property, the amount calculated by multiplying the loan amount by the adequate interest rate under the provisions of Article 41-4 of the former Inheritance Tax and

2. Conclusion

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