Seoul Administrative Court 2015Guhap63746 ( October 22, 2016)

Tax Tribunal 2014Seoul Northern1207 (25 December 2015)

The imposition of 1/2 of the acquisition fund of the real estate of this case on the ground that it was donated by the spouse is unlawful.

The real estate of this case is only the name of the plaintiff on the registry, and in fact, one half of the shares are nominal in trust to the plaintiff, and the disposition that deemed that one half of the acquisition fund was donated from the spouse for no purpose of tax avoidance is unreasonable.

Gift tax under Article 2 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Seoul High Court 2016Nu35399 Revocation of Disposition Imposing Gift Tax

EO

Head of Seocho Tax Office

on December 22, 2016

on 21, 2016

October 05, 2016

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant.

the Gu Office's place of service and place of service

1. Purport of claim

On November 13, 2013, the Defendant revoked the imposition of gift tax and additional tax as shown in the separate sheet against the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for partial contents of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○ 3rd page 9 "The real estate of this case" is "the real estate of this case, which is 1008-17, Dongjak-gu, Seoul.

Land is depreciated as "land".

○ 3 to 9 parallels are as follows.

② The Plaintiff and the spouse have to raise a loan of KRW 2.3 billion out of the remainder of the purchase price of the instant real estate in KRW 6.257 billion. However, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the spouse have to pay the remainder of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△ (the maximum bond amount of KRW 2770 million) established on the instant real estate and KRW 50 million (the maximum bond amount of KRW 50 million) that was likely to exercise the right to collateral security, so as to secure ownership by allowing the Plaintiff to repay the collateral security debt as soon as possible. The Plaintiff and the spouse were given advice from the employees of the lending bank that the Plaintiff’s sole name of the debtor of the loan contract would be simple and prompt subject to the loan examination, and had the purchaser of the instant real estate changed the Plaintiff’s sole name.

○ 5 10 pages 10 "The fact that the plaintiff and his spouse have the income corresponding to the highest section of the income tax rate" are as follows:

Since the plaintiff and the spouse are elderly couple, they have an income corresponding to the highest section of each income tax rate, it is difficult to see that they had the intention of evading tax or legal restrictions and evading compulsory execution through marital title trust.

2. Conclusion

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