In order to say that taxation is void as a matter of course, there is a serious defect in the disposition.

Since the gift contract is canceled after the disposition of gift tax is levied and the registration of transfer of ownership is cancelled, the legality of the disposition of gift tax cannot be asserted, and there is no obvious defect in the disposition of gift tax.

2016 Doz. 51768 Undue profit

Until the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

Money calculated at the rate of 58,026,213 won and its interest from June 14, 2011

Until the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 5% per annum and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

each share of the money shall be paid.

GoAAB 3

In respect of each real estate described in paragraphs 3 and 4, paragraph 6 shall apply to highCC.

With respect to the real property, each of the real property listed in paragraphs 9 and 10 (hereinafter the plaintiffs' acquisition of the real property

the gift of February 18, 201 (hereinafter referred to as "the gift of each of the real estates in this case")

The registration of ownership transfer was made based on the gift agreement of this case ("the gift agreement of this case").

○ On the other hand, GoE shall set forth a list 5 attached hereto to the Plaintiff HighB at the time of the above transfer of ownership.

(1) A real estate set forth in [Attachment 7 and 8] Nos. 7 and 8 shall be

Ownership by reason of each donation for each real estate listed in attached Form 11 on the annual basis;

The former registration was followed.

○ The Plaintiffs, within the deadline for filing a gift tax base return, for each real estate listed in the attached list.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s voluntary declaration was made, and in detail, the Plaintiff’s Gohap paid KRW 58,194,00 on June 30, 201.

B, Plaintiff HighB: (a) 80,071,200 won on June 14, 201; and (b) Plaintiff HighCC on April 29, 2011.

83,268,00 won, and Plaintiff DaD paid 82,512,00 won on June 14, 201, respectively.

○ High EE bears against the Plaintiffs on July 12, 2012 as Incheon District Court 2012 Gohap12074.

The assertion that the gift contract of this case, which is non-donation, was cancelled on the ground of the plaintiffs' non-performance of obligation

A lawsuit was brought to seek cancellation of ownership transfer registration regarding each real estate of this case. The above court filed a lawsuit.

A. On January 29, 2013, the judgment ordering the plaintiffs to cancel the registration procedure for each transfer of ownership as above (Gong2013)

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. This judgment became final and conclusive.

Registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs on each real estate shall be the cause of the above final judgment on September 13, 2013.

all were cancelled.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (a)

(including lot number), the whole purport of the pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Whether unjust enrichment is established on the ground that no gift tax is imposed

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

Book of Gift Tax by failing to determine and notify the tax base and amount of tax to the Plaintiffs;

Since there is no excessive disposition, the plaintiffs paid each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

Among gift tax, the amount stated in the claim corresponding to the taxable value of each real property of this case and related thereto

Interest and delay damages shall be claimed for the return thereof.

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

obligation of gift tax, which is a tax levied method, shall be subject to the procedures prescribed in the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.

The Customs Office determines the tax base and amount of tax (Article 22(1) and (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes).

Article 10-2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree (see Article 10-2 subparagraph 5 of the Enforcement Decree), in principle, the tax authority

The tax base and amount of gift tax shall be determined, and the relevant decision shall be notified to the taxpayer.

Articles 76(1) and 77 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

B) Determination

The defendant, taking into account each description of Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number) and the whole purport of the pleading,

As of October 17, 201, the Incheon Tax Office under its control shall: (a) with respect to Plaintiff GoA on October 17, 201; and (b) with respect to Plaintiff GoB on September 21, 2011

As to September 29, 201, Plaintiff HighCC, as to September 15, 201, respectively, as to Plaintiff HighCC

fact that high courts have determined the gift tax base and tax amount as voluntarily returned and paid, and around that time

Recognizing that there exists a notice of gift tax decision on Plaintiffs DaA, HighCC, and HighD

(2) At the time of the payment of gift tax by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs

notice of decision on gift tax by the Incheon Tax Office affiliated with the defendant is highly likely to be destroyed;

in writing that there is no circumstance to exclude only the part against Defendant DaB, and that it is not visible to exclude only the part against Defendant DaB;

Gohap’s notice of gift tax decision on the Plaintiffs seems to be any particular circumstance that did not serve the Plaintiffs.

In light of the fact that the notice of gift tax determination against the plaintiffs was prepared, the plaintiff was around the time when the notice of gift tax determination was prepared.

It is reasonable to confirm that the assessment standard of gift tax and the amount of tax have been notified to them (hereinafter the same).

The defendant's imposition of gift tax on the plaintiffs is called "the imposition disposition of gift tax of this case".

The plaintiffs' assertion that is premised on the absence of the disposition imposing gift tax of this case is remaining in the remaining points.

There is no reason for further review.

B. Whether unjust enrichment is established on the ground that the disposition imposing gift tax is void as a matter of course

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

A) The instant donation contract, which is a non-paid donation upon the exercise of the statutory rescission right, was rescinded.

Since the gift tax liability becomes retroactively null and void, the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case is unreasonable.

is effective.

B) High EE shall make investments in kind in accordance with a partnership agreement with the Plaintiffs in accordance with each of the instant real estate.

At the same time, the legal form of the donation contract with the charge, and the investment in kind according to the same business has been made by the gift tax.

Since the imposition of the gift tax of this case cannot be subject to taxation, the imposition of the gift tax of this case is null and void.

Therefore, according to the disposition imposing gift tax of this case which is null and void as a matter of course, the plaintiffs paid to the defendant

amount equivalent to the taxable value of each real property of this case and interest and delay damages thereon.

(2) shall request the return of the

2) Determination

A) Relevant legal principles

In order for taxation to be null and void as a matter of course, there is no illegality in the disposition.

the defect must be in violation of the important laws and regulations and objectively apparent;

In determining whether a defect is significant and obvious, the basis for the taxation concerned

The purpose, meaning, function, etc. of the laws and regulations, as well as the person who has a specific case.

It needs to be reasonably examined about the specificity of body (Supreme Court 1 November 27, 1990).

[Attachment] Legal relations or facts generally subject to taxation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu10862)

(Income or act) a taxation disposition made to a person who has no income or act is significant and apparent that the defect is apparent and apparent.

That is to say, any legal relation or fact which is not subject to taxation, but which is not subject to taxation.

In the event that there are objective circumstances to mislead the person to be subject to taxation, such taxation shall be subject to taxation.

If it can only be identified that the facts should be accurately examined.

The above facts of taxation requirement cannot be seen as apparent even if the defect is serious.

It can not be said that the erroneous taxation disposition is null and void as a matter of course (Supreme Court Decision 20 December 20, 1996).

95Da20379 decided Feb. 1, 200

B) In the case of defects following statutory cancellation of the gift with bearing charge:

The standard time for determining the illegality of taxation disposition in tax action is the time of the disposition.

Therefore, in case of acquisition of property by gift, the taxation authority imposes gift tax on the taxpayer.

(2) If the donation contract has been lawfully rescinded and the cancellation thereof has been registered by the cancellation thereof, the contract

The effect of the change in the real right caused by the performance shall be retroactively extinguished, and the donation shall not have been made from the beginning.

Since a disposition imposing gift tax which is the cause of taxation should not be considered as a disposition imposing gift tax.

However, the registration of transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of the gift contract after the taxation disposition was made.

A lawsuit seeking cancellation was filed and the judgment of winning the claim became final and conclusive or the registration was cancelled accordingly.

The reason alone is that the legality of the gift tax imposition disposition can not be asserted (Supreme Court Decision 1992.).

2. 25. See Supreme Court Decisions 91Nu12776, Apr. 28, 1998; 96Nu15442, Apr. 28, 1998.

In light of the above legal principles, the gift contract of this case after the disposition to impose the gift tax of this case is made.

As long as the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiffs was cancelled, the disposition imposing the gift tax of this case

Section 45-2 (2)(5) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, aside from the fact that the correction is requested for a portion

Heading, Article 25-2 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes, and for this reason, the gift tax imposition disposition of this case

The legality of the gift tax of this case cannot be disputed, and objectively apparent defect at the time of the disposition of the gift tax of this case

Nor can it be deemed that there was a crime.

C) In the case of defects caused by mistake in the subject of taxation

In full view of the above recognized facts and the purport of the entire arguments, the following circumstances, namely:

The disposition of △△ to impose the gift tax of this case is in accordance with the Plaintiffs’ voluntary report and payment of the gift tax.

The Do Governor alleged that the legal form of the investment in kind was a gift contract with the burden of return, and the △△ Plaintiff

Even after the filing of the instant lawsuit, legal grounds for the registration of transfer of ownership to each of the instant real estate

Recognizing that it was a gift contract with charge, the first spot goods from the preparatory brief dated April 20, 2017, asserting that it was a gift contract with charge.

Comprehensively taking account of the facts alleged as investment, it is apparent that the gift tax is not subject to taxation.

subsection (b) of this section.

3) Sub-decisions

Since the gift tax imposition disposition of this case cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, the defendant cannot be viewed as the plaintiffs.

It cannot be deemed that unjust enrichment is established with respect to the amount equivalent to the gift tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ above-mentioned money.

The argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Korea

on 01 October 01, 201

on December 22, 2016

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant of the Cheong-gu Office shall pay 5% interest per annum to the plaintiff Go-A for 58,194,00 won and its 5% interest per annum from June 30, 201 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, 53,29,51 won and its interest per annum from June 14, 201 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 5% interest per annum from June 14, 201 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment, 31,627,442 won and its interest per annum from April 29, 201 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

○ EE, the father of the Plaintiffs, owned each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, but on March 9, 201, on each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the separate sheet: