2011Revocation of revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, 4191

rights (37 years old, n.e., women)

Isacheon-si

Law Firm 20

Attorney Kim PR

The director of the tax office

Summary of the litigation performer;

July 7, 2011

August 18, 2011

1. The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 890, 613, and 110 on the Plaintiff on September 28, 2010 is revoked.

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

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the co-ownership of the Plaintiff and the newCC, its husband (hereinafter referred to as "each of the above real estate"), and the purchase price was paid from the account with the new 20 persons.

A person shall be appointed.

B. As a result of the Defendant’s investigation into the source of funds of the Middle Regional Tax Office, when the Plaintiff acquired 1/2 shares of each of the instant subsidiary properties as above, it was confirmed that the Plaintiff received gift of KRW 2,277,79,794, and 300 from the new spouse, which was the sum of the purchase price, acquisition tax, registration tax, etc. according thereto. On September 28, 2010, the Defendant imposed gift tax of KRW 890,613,110 on the Plaintiff on September 28, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant wife”).

C. On October 21, 2010, the Plaintiff filed a request for examination with the Commissioner of the National Tax Service regarding the instant disposition, but such request was dismissed on March 4, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 12, and 13 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, 4. Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 as a whole and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate in the name of 20 square meters in the name of Ox 3,170 square meters (hereinafter “O-owned land”) at the her husband’s new and O elementary school near the her husband’s new and OO elementary school. The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate in the name of 20 new Ox 3,170 square meters (hereinafter “O-owned land”). Therefore, even if the acquisition fund of each of the instant real estate was from the new account in the name of O-dong Do, it was not a donation, but was the common property of the original husband and wife, and thus, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the acquisition fund of 1/2 shares on each of the instant land of this case was received from the new one.

B. Determination

1) The following facts are acknowledged according to whether Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 (including each number) are written and all pleadings are taken.

A) The Plaintiff completed the marriage report on January 10, 1957, 10, and 10, and was married to a new marriage. At the time from around 1969 to around 1975, the Plaintiff had been operating a hole in the vicinity of 00 elementary schools together with a new agricultural company. At the time, the new agricultural company was located, but these couple purchased a half-yearly land on January 20, 1975 with the collected money at that time, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the new name.

B) After selling O-dong land to 9.3 billion won, the Plaintiff and New Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “DO”) that promote apartment construction projects around 2006, the Plaintiff and New Technology Co., Ltd. sold the O-dong land to 9.3 billion won, and after paying the capital gains tax, etc., approximately KRW 2.6 billion out of the remaining sales price, the Plaintiff and New Technology Co., Ltd. are in the name of the Plaintiff, and approximately KRW 5 billion in

The deposit was made in the name of 00 account.

C) Afterwards, AC claimed that new 00 land was sold at a high price without any basis, and that new 00 land was sold at a higher price, and that it was lost against B while filing a lawsuit for damages claim against D&C under 1006Gahap111. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance court became final and conclusive as it was dismissed on September 1, 208, 2008, and the appeal was dismissed on September 11, 2008. Meanwhile, DO and D&C at the time of the above lawsuit, when this judgment became final and conclusive as seen above, the claim for provisional seizure was withdrawn.

D) Even during the period in which deposit withdrawal was not made due to the decision of provisional attachment against the above deposit claims in the new name, the Plaintiff and the new purchaser acquired several parcels of land in the Chungcheong City with the money located in the said 00 account in the Plaintiff’s name, either a new sole name or a new joint name with the Plaintiff.

2) In addition, the above facts indicate that the O-dong land was only 3,170 meters in size, and that the purchase price in 1975 acquired under the new name would not have been a large amount of the purchase price in 1975. In addition, the O-dong land was in the name of the new sole owner, notwithstanding the fact that the O-dong land was in the name of the new owner.

At the same time, the mother was the common property of the couple acquired by money, and the disposal price is also the common property of the couple. Therefore, even if the acquisition fund of 1/2 shares acquired in the name of the plaintiff among each real estate of this case was made out of the new account, it is original and new with the plaintiff.

Since the Plaintiff is a common property, it cannot be deemed that the said acquisition fund was donated from the new one.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful on a different premise.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.

Freeboard of the presiding judge

Judges Lee Young-Nam

Judges Cho Jong-tae