logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2019.04.12 2018구합72208
증여세부과처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who is a citizen of the Australia who is living in Australia, and B is the father of the plaintiff and C are the mother of the plaintiff.

B. On January 24, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in KRW 447,100,000 through the auction procedure.

C. The Defendant, including the instant real estate, conducted an investigation into the source of acquisition funds for domestic and Australia real estate acquired by the Plaintiff from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2012. The Plaintiff, on January 23, 2006, deemed that the Plaintiff received KRW 386,00,00 from the Plaintiff’s account from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account (hereinafter “the instant money”), and determined and notified the Plaintiff on June 14, 2017 as the donation of KRW 148,146,840 (= principal tax of KRW 61,200,000 as penalty tax of KRW 86,946,840).

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1, 12, and 13 evidence, Eul 11 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's mother C transferred his claim against the plaintiff to the plaintiff in order to repay the debt owed to the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid the debt corresponding to the amount of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the payment to the plaintiff does not constitute a donation to the plaintiff.

3. Attached statements to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. In a lawsuit seeking revocation of gift tax, inasmuch as the deposit in the name of a donor, which is recognized as a donor by the tax authority, is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in the account in the name of the taxpayer, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of the taxpayer, it is necessary to prove such fact to the taxpayer

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082 delivered on November 13, 2001). B.

B The money of this case on January 23, 2006 is to be paid by the Plaintiff.

arrow