beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap3638 ( December 11, 2015)
Title
In the event that real estate acquired in the name of the child as the embezzlement fund of the father has been carried out as a collateral, and the repayment of the loan in the name of the child has been made with the embezzlement fund of the father is equivalent to the donation.
Summary
(1) According to various circumstances, the instant building belongs to the Plaintiff, and the actual subject of the instant loan can be deemed as the Plaintiff. As such, Isa may be deemed to have donated the amount equivalent to the amount of the instant loan to the Plaintiff by repaying the instant loan.
Related statutes
Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables) of Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act
Cases
2016Nu30837 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax
Plaintiff and appellant
IsaA
Defendant, Appellant
○○ Head of tax office
Judgment of the first instance court
Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap3638 decided December 11, 2015
Conclusion of Pleadings
on October 29, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
on October 016, 2010
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall revoke the disposition of imposition of gift tax of KRW 000,000,000 (including additional tax) against the plaintiff on November 1, 2013.
Reasons
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
The reasons for this court's ruling are not to exclude the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance as follows:
The decision of the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420
○ 9 pages 21 "The above paragraph (2)" shall be "the above paragraph (2)".
○ 12 pages 13 of the 13th page "the defendant column" shall be read as "the person under whose name the acquisition is made".
○ 15 pages 12-18, each of the "defendants" in the column of acquisition title No. 12-18 of the annexed list No.
2. Conclusion
The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.