2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On March 24, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired ○○○-dong 41 ○○○-dong 808 1007 dong 1007 (hereinafter “instant apartment”). The purchase price of the instant apartment was KRW 560,00,000, which is the Plaintiff’s husband, paid from January 6, 2006 to March 24, 2006, the price for selling ○○-dong 28-4 240 square meters and the above-ground building (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. Accordingly, on August 14, 2007, the Defendant presumed that the Plaintiff donated KRW 560,000,000 to the acquisition fund of the apartment of this case from Lee○○○○, and issued the instant disposition imposing gift tax stated in the purport of the claim on the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7, Eul evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since it was filed without going through the necessary pre-trial procedure such as national tax trial, etc., and therefore, whether the requirements for the lawsuit are met should be determined at the time of closing of argument. According to the written evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the plaintiff filed a national tax appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on November 26, 2007, which was within ninety days from August 30, 2007 upon receipt of the notice of the disposition of this case, and the fact that the decision was not notified by the date of closing of argument of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is legitimate lawsuit which goes through the pre-trial procedure.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The apartment of this case was purchased as the sale price of the house of this case, which is the common property of the plaintiff's husband and wife, and it was merely trusted to the plaintiff by Lee ○, who is the husband of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the above apartment by receiving a donation of the acquisition fund of the above apartment, which was the object

(b) Related statutes;

m. Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax

Article 44 (Presumption of Donation at Time of Transfer to Spouse, etc.)

Property transferred to the spouse, or lineal ascendant or descendant (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the “spouse, etc.”) shall be presumed to have been donated by the spouse, etc. at the time when the transferor transfers the property concerned, and shall be deemed to have been donated by the spouse

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquisition of Property)

Where it is difficult to recognize that the property was acquired by its own means in view of the occupation, age, income, property status, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the acquisition fund of the property shall be presumed to have been donated to the person who acquired the property at the time of acquiring the property, and it shall be deemed

C. Determination

In light of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and ○○○○, the husband and the wife of the instant apartment; and (b) the Plaintiff does not seem to have any good reason to believe that the title trust was to be made to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and ○○○○○, on the sole basis that the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the instant apartment was a title trust to the Plaintiff; (b) there is no evidence to deem otherwise; and (c) there is no evidence to view the instant apartment house registered under the name of ○○○, unlike its registration, as public property of the Plaintiff’s husband

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.