Suwon District Court-2015-Gu Partnership-60694 ( October 25, 2016)

It is insufficient to view that the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account is the proceeds from the sale of the key picture donated by the Plaintiff’s referring, which actually belongs to the Plaintiff.

The facts alone are insufficient to view that the money deposited into the Plaintiff’s account is the proceeds from the sale of the key picture donated by the Plaintiff from his her son as the funds actually reverted to the Plaintiff, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise

Article 45 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act: Presumption of Donation of Property Acquisition Funds

2016Nu7479 Revocation of Disposition of Imposing gift tax

OraA

○ Head of tax office

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Guhap60694 Decided October 25, 2016

2017.06.21

oly 2017.08.16

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. The defendant's imposition of the gift tax ○○○○ in 2008 on July 19, 2013 against the plaintiff and the imposition of the gift tax ○○ in 2010 on July 22, 2013 (including each additional tax) shall be revoked.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment except for the dismissal or addition of part of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, the meaning of the language used in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter the same is the same as the judgment of the first instance).

2. Parts used or added;

The term "loans" in Part 7, 9, 198, 766,040 won is high as "banking loans, etc.", and "1,198,824,400 won (2,86,766,040 won less 1,050,000,000 won from 205-2006 to 2006 and the Tax Tribunal borrowed from her husband-inCC which was recognized as repayment of bank loans from her husband on June 1, 2009, excluding 637,941,640 won).

○ The 8th page “A” in the 19th page is regarded as the “Plaintiff”.

The ○ 9th parallel 3 to 10th parallel 7 shall be followed as follows:

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to ① evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, 19 through 23, evidence No. 29-1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 6, and witness KimF testimony in the first instance trial, ○○ Bank Account (***1*-1****************************************) deposited from BB on June 25, 2008, KRW 1.3 billion on September 6, 2008, which was deposited from the above ○ Bank Account; the issues amount third on September 11, 2008, the above ○ Bank Account was paid from the above ○ Bank Account; the fact that the above ○ Bank Account was paid for the total amount of KRW 300,000,000 used by the Plaintiff and was paid for various public charges, communications charges, donations, etc. by the Plaintiff’s husband’s deposit.

② Furthermore, considering whether the Plaintiff’s KRW 1.3 billion deposited into the above ○○ Bank account under the name of the Plaintiff, as the sales price for the issues donated by the Plaintiff at the time of marriage in 1984, Gap evidence No. 17, No. 18-1 and the overall purport of pleadings, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: (a) the transaction partner in BB’s transaction (pre-paid payment in the account); (b) the Plaintiff’s husband and KimF, who participated in the management of the Plaintiff’s property, did not appear to have been the Plaintiff’s ownership in the first instance court; (c) the Plaintiff’s 1.3 billion won was the Plaintiff’s sales price for the issues donated by the Plaintiff at the time of marriage in 1984; and (d) the Plaintiff did not appear to have been aware of the facts that the Plaintiff’s 1.3 billion amount of money was the Plaintiff’s money deposited in the account under the name of the Plaintiff’s ○ Bank account; and (d) the Plaintiff’s testimony and evidence No. 16201.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.