Cho Jae-2015-west-2175 ( October 15, 2016),

In addition to the status of beneficiary of an inheritance-type immediate pension contract, the right to receive a refund upon termination of the contract is also acquired.

In addition to the status of beneficiary of an inheritance-type immediate pension contract, the right to receive a refund for termination upon termination of the contract is also acquired, and it is reasonable to evaluate the value of donated property as of the date of donation.

Article 60 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act:

The evaluation of the right to receive the Adjustment Fund under Article 62 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance and Gift Tax

2016Guhap61044

CC

○ Head of tax office

on October 24, 2017

on 04 October 07, 2017

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s imposition of gift tax on February 2, 2015 by KRW 00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 24, 2011, Won (out of three cases), upon entering into an immediate pension insurance contract with ○○ Life Insurance Co., Ltd. and lump-sum payment of insurance premiums, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and △△△△ Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant immediate pension insurance contract”), set the insured as a contractor and beneficiary themselves, and set the insured as a D (the father of the Plaintiff), and immediately paying the total insurance premium to ○○○○ upon entering into the contract.

B. On April 14, 201, Won changed the "contractor" of the immediate pension insurance of this case to the original B (the mother of the plaintiff), and the "beneficiary" to the plaintiff (hereinafter "the donation of this case").

C. On June 28, 2011, the Plaintiff deemed that the instant immediate pension insurance constituted “the right to receive a regular payment” under Article 65(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) and Article 62 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26960, Feb. 5, 2016).

After evaluating the value of ○○○○, the sum of the cash ○○○○, donated by the original AA, reported ○○○○○○ as the value of donated property.

D. 1) On July 11, 2013, the head of the ○○ Tax Office: (a) donated the instant donation to the originalB by the originalB, and (b) deemed that the originalB donated the right to receive a regular payment to the Plaintiff; and (c) determined and notified the originalB of gift tax ○○○ and the Plaintiff of gift tax ○○○○○.

2) On December 2, 2014, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to revoke the above disposition on the grounds that the original BB appears to be a nominal contractor, and accordingly, revoked the imposition of each gift tax.

E. (1) On February 2, 2015, the Defendant assessed the value of the instant immediate pension insurance as “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○” and decided on and notified the Plaintiff of the gift tax.

2) On January 25, 2016, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to exclude an additional tax for arrears, which was added after July 11, 2013, and then corrected the amount of tax. Accordingly, on February 3, 2016, the Defendant reduced the amount of ○○○ out of the amount of tax imposed on gift tax.

3) On January 10, 2017, the Defendant assessed the value of the immediate pension insurance of this case as ○○○○○ (the total amount of refund upon termination), which is the value of the immediate pension insurance of this case, and reduced the KRW ○○○○ (hereinafter the above) out of the amount of gift tax imposed on the gift tax (hereinafter the above).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul 1, 3, 4, entry of evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

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

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff is not entitled to terminate the immediate annuity insurance of this case because only he was given the status of "beneficiary" of the immediate annuity insurance of this case, and as he did not receive the status of "contractor", the value of the property donated to the plaintiff should be regarded as "right to receive a regular payment" rather than "sumd refund."

B. Determination

1) Property belonging to the donee and having property value which can be converted into money is included in the donated property, and the calculation of the value thereof shall be based on the market price as of the date of donation. However, if no donated property is freely traded among many and unspecified persons and the market price of the property cannot be calculated immediately because no other provision exists to assess its value, it shall not be imposed on the basis of the amount most appropriate to the property value of the pertinent donated property. In a case where the status of a donor under an insurance contract transferred to the donee constitutes donated property, there is no appropriate method to promptly calculate the market price of the status itself under the relevant insurance contract, while the donor may calculate the pecuniary value of various rights recognized in the status of the insurance contract, such as refund money or various insurance money that can be received at the time of termination of the insurance contract or withdrawal of subscription, and if such rights are incompatible with each other, the value of such rights, barring special circumstances, if

Since the highest thing is the most suitable value of donated property, gift tax may be imposed on this basis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Du51613, Oct. 13, 2016).

2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, “○○○○○, a refund expected to be repaid at the time of the donation of this case, is the amount that corresponds to the property value of the status of beneficiary under the immediately preceding pension insurance contract received by the plaintiff from the originalA.

A) The status of the beneficiary of the instant immediate annuity insurance is not freely traded among many and unspecified persons, and there is no other provision in assessing the value thereof, and there is no adequate method of calculating the market price immediately.

B) The fact that the “contractor” of the instant immediate annuity insurance is changed to the original BB, not the Plaintiff, is as seen earlier. However, the Plaintiff and the original BB are as follows: (i) the mother and child are the child; and (ii) the head of ○○ Tax Office imposed gift tax on the Plaintiff and the original B; and (iii) the Plaintiff and the original BB asserted that “the original BB is merely a contractor to prevent the Plaintiff from terminating the insurance contract even if the Plaintiff is a minor, and the actual contractor and the beneficiary are the Plaintiff.” In light of the fact that the Tax Tribunal accepted the assertion, it should be deemed that the Plaintiff at any time terminated the contract and acquired the status to receive the refund for termination even if it did not acquire the status of the “contractor” in the form of the Plaintiff.

C) The Plaintiff, while maintaining the instant immediate pension insurance, also acquired the status to receive the survivors’ pension every month. However, the amount of the survivors’ pension is linked to the variable interest rate. As such, whether to receive the survivors’ pension in the future at the time of the donation is possible and the accurate amount thereof cannot be known. Based on the amount of the survivors’ pension that can be received in the year of donation, the value calculated by applying Article 62 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is less than the value of the right to receive the premium by cancelling the instant immediate pension insurance, which is incompatible with the foregoing.

3) Therefore, the instant disposition that the Defendant assessed the value of the property donated to the Plaintiff, which is the expected amount refunded to the Defendant, is lawful.

4. Conclusion

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