The court ruled that the tax authorities were justified in imposing gift tax on hundreds of millions of won received from the other party they met through a "conditional meeting."

The argument that it was the price of prostitution and therefore not subject to gift tax was not accepted.

According to legal circles today (15th), the Administrative Division 2 of the Seoul Administrative Court (Presiding Judge Shin Myung-hee) ruled that the plaintiff lost the lawsuit filed by Mr. A against the Seoul Banpo Tax Office to "cancel the disposition of the gift tax levy."

Mr. A first met Mr. B, a full-time stock investor in his 2004s at the time, through an Internet chat site in 2005~30 when he was a minor.

Mr. B continued to see Mr. A and provide him with financial support even after he became an adult.

I also managed Mr. A's securities account and traded stocks.

The Banpo Tax Office conducted an investigation into the source of funds after Mr. A obtained 2011 million won in interest income in 4 and acquired three properties between 300 and 2014.

As a result of the investigation, it was confirmed that 2017 million won was deposited by Mr. B between 3 and 2006, and a gift tax of 2012 million won was levied on 9 million won of the amount.

In the lawsuit, Mr. A claimed that he had received "money in exchange for a conditional meeting."

The idea is that it cannot be regarded as a "gift", which is the act of receiving it freely, and therefore is not subject to gift tax.

However, the court did not uphold this argument.

Earlier, it was based on Mr. A's claim that the two had developed into a "romantic relationship" in a civil and criminal dispute with Mr. B.

In 3, Mr. B sued Mr. A for the return of the loan money, asking him to return 9 million won, and when he lost, he sued Mr. A for fraud the following year.

During the investigation, Mr. A claimed that "Mr. B supported him while dating him in a romantic relationship," and he was dismissed.

Based on these records, the court concluded that "the money was received by Mr. A after he became an adult" and that "since he stated (in the relevant case) that he had a romantic relationship with Mr. B and received financial support, it cannot be said that it constituted mere payment for prostitution, but rather that it was given as a gift of courtship."

Mr. A also claimed that 2 million won out of the 5 million won was given as alimony by Mr. B, who was arrested on charges of prostituting other minors, but this was also not accepted.

The court stated, "There is no evidence to admit that 3 million won is a settlement amount, and it is also contrary to the rule of thumb that a large sum of 2017 million won is paid in the name of alimony."

(Photo = Courtesy of Yonhap News TV, Yonhap News)