Seoul Administrative Court-2014-Gu Partnership-69549 ( October 24, 2015)

Seocho 2014west 1251 (2014.09)

It is presumed that the money transferred from the account of the plaintiff to the account is received as a gift, barring special circumstances.

(1) The disposition that the Defendant deemed the donation is lawful, inasmuch as there are no special circumstances such as that the money transferred from the decedent’s account before the decedent’s death to the Plaintiff’s account, which is the spouse, was transferred for another purpose.

Articles 2 and 31 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

2015Nu5730 Revocation of Disposition of Revocation of Inheritance Tax Imposition

The AA and 2

BB Director of the Tax Office

May 26, 2017

July 7, 2017

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant revoked the disposition of imposition of KRW 15,434,020 on August 1, 201 with respect to the portion of gift on August 20, 201 with respect to the portion of gift on August 20, 2009, KRW 13,957,570 on January 19, 201, KRW 11,400,280 on the portion of gift on May 22, 2011, and KRW 5,450,40 on the portion of gift on December 19, 2012, and each disposition of imposition of KRW 37,170,730 on the portion of gift with respect to the portion of gift on October 1, 2013, and both revocation of the disposition of imposition of KRW 120,14,140 on each of the imposition of KRW 37,140 on the plaintiffs on October 1, 2013.

1. Quotation of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this judgment is as follows. ② The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court are justifiable even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs to this court is added to the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, and it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance court except for the cases where there is no error as alleged by the plaintiffs, and thus, it is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The evidence presented by the Plaintiff’s presentA alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion that the net ParkCC, which entirely managed the Plaintiff’s property, used the real estate sales price owned by the said Plaintiff and paid the said debt to the Plaintiff, out of the amount transferred to the Plaintiff’s presentA, KRW 39,958,000 on May 22, 201 and KRW 20,000 on July 19, 201. The remaining amount, as the only asset of the said Plaintiff, was used for the cost of living.

2. Conclusion

If so, all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.