Seoul Administrative Court-2017-Gu 73570 ( April 26, 2018)

Cho High-2017-Seoul Government-158 (2017.05.02)

In a lawsuit to revoke the imposition of gift tax, it is necessary to prove that a donor's deposit is withdrawn and deposited in the account in the taxpayer's name

As long as the deposited money in the name of a donor is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account, etc. in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as that the deposit was made for other purpose than the donation, the taxpayer needs to prove

Article 45(3) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquisition of Property)

2018Nu45376 Demanding revocation of imposition of gift tax

AA

BB Director of the Tax Office

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2017Guhap73570 decided April 26, 2018

July 3, 2018

July 17, 2018

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each disposition of the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on December 2, 2016 of KRW 83,605,50 (including additional taxes) and KRW 62,797,020 (including additional taxes) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall accept it in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[25,000,000 won] 249,000 won in the third place of the judgment of the first instance.

○ The name of the office of the broker in the upper end of 5th judgment of the first instance court is “a type of real estate” in the name of the broker.

Ped real estate; and

○ On the 6th judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

(Y) Even if the above real estate lease contract was drafted around March 10, 1996 as of the date of its preparation, it is always possible for both the father and the Plaintiff to prepare a once lease contract for the benefit of getting out of the real lease deposit without receiving the actual lease deposit. Therefore, there is no indication that the above real estate lease contract has a special agreement, a fixed date, or a change in the lease deposit amount after the fixed date. Therefore, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the above real estate lease contract has a real estate lease contract as it is without any objective financial source or financial material to accept the lease deposit as it is).

○ The following shall be added on the sixthth judgment of the first instance court:

[Plaintiffs presented in this Court a copy of the Plaintiff’s wife’s pocket book (Evidence A18) stating “from October 200 to December 2001, 700 to the mother” (No. 18). However, even if so, it is not clearly confirmed whether the amount paid as above was about the increase in the lease deposit.”

○ Part 7 of the 7th decision of the first instance court, “The following is added”:

(1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and the head of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, jointly with the head of the Gu for the transfer of the resident registration from the instant wooden apartment to another place on May 6, 2008, the Plaintiff actually resided in the instant wooden apartment from the instant wooden apartment to August 2010. According to the evidence No. 120, the Plaintiff and the head of the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, for the transfer of the resident registration from the instant wooden apartment to the other place. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was in fact, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff had maintained the resident registration in the instant wooden apartment from April 6, 1996 to August 24, 2010. However, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion was in fact, it is difficult to see that the Plaintiff returned the lease deposit to the Plaintiff on August 18, 2010).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.