Incheon District Court-2014-Gu 2145 (2015.07.09)

lack of evidence as to the receipt of reimbursement and the existence of loan

(As in the judgment of the court of first instance, there is no specific assertion or proof as to the timing and amount of recovery, etc., and the disposition of this case, which was made in accordance with the legal principles of presumption of donation, cannot

Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

2015Nu52076 Revocation of Disposition of Imposition of Gift Tax

KimA

The director of the Southern Incheon District Office

on 03.03 09

on October 06, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The decision of the first instance court shall be revoked. On December 10, 2013, the defendant revoked the imposition disposition of KRW 00 on the plaintiff (the plaintiff sought revocation of the imposition disposition of KRW 000,00, which is the amount on the initial notice of taxation, but this court appealed only 00,00, which is the amount on the gift tax decision resolution, and the purport of the claim shall be deemed to be written in writing).

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

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

00 22-2 " 00 dong 22-2" on the 2nd page 16, and 22-1 "the same 22-1" shall each be read as "0 dong 222-1".

In Part 3, "A" in Part 16 of Part 3 is added to "A for the 2008 year."

○ In Part 6, paragraph 5, the term “action for Revocation of Fraudulent Act” is added to “(In Incheon District Court 000 Gohap0000).”

The FF (GGG's 6th side) of the sixth side is "F (GG's son's son's son's son's son's son's 6th side)".

○ On February 25, 2013, the part 6, 11, "200,000 won", and the part 11 to 12, "on March 14, 2013," respectively, are "on March 14, 2003," respectively.

In Part 6, "The plaintiff side" in Part 13 is added to "(the plaintiff, BB, CCC)."

Section 7. The following shall be added to "the payment has been made" of Section 14.

[A] AA’s deposit amount at around 10:32 on April 14, 000 to seize the deposit account (agricultural 000-000-000-000) of AA for the default of capital gains tax by the Defendant, at least 12:10,000, after the cancellation of the deposit contract at around 10:43 of the same day and withdrawal of KRW 000,000 from the said account to BB on the same day.]

2. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.