The plaintiff was donated property from his non-party Kim Jong-mun, and the above Kim ○, a donor, paid 251,649,000 won, gift tax on October 10, 1991, and 166,008,000 won, gift tax on October 23, 1991 (hereinafter each of the gift tax in this case), respectively, to the defendant. On this, the defendant is deemed to have again donated each of the gift tax in this case to the plaintiff on July 16, 1992 by calculating the tax amount as the gift tax in each of the gift tax in this case as the gift tax in this case on July 16, 1992, the above Kim ○, a donor of each of the gift tax in this case, as the gift tax in this case, and each of the above items of claims (hereinafter the disposition of imposition in this case) were written in the same manner as Gap evidence 1-2, 23, 31-2, 31-2, 31-2, 31-2, and 31-3.

2. Whether the disposition of imposition is lawful.

The plaintiff asserts that Article 25 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that Article 414 through 416, 419, 421, 423, and 425 through 427 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to joint and several liability for payment by joint and several business operators of joint and several business operators, separate from Article 25 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the donor's self-payment of the gift tax shall not be deemed as another gift act, while the defendant did not regard the donor's self-payment of the gift tax as a separate donation, it violates the principle of joint and several liability for tax payment, and the plaintiff's imposition of the gift tax in this case is against the principle of joint and several liability for tax payment, and since Article 25 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that Article 414 through 416, 419, 421, 423, and 425 through 427 of the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the joint and several gift acts.

First, according to the relevant laws and regulations, Article 29-2(2) of the Inheritance Tax Act, Article 38(3) and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when a donee is deemed to have disposed of a donee or lost his ability as a taxpayer for other reasons before determining the taxable value of the gift tax, the donor shall be jointly and severally liable for the gift tax to be paid by the donee when it is difficult for the donee to secure the tax claim even when the donee defaults the gift tax and collects delinquent taxes on the property of the donee. In the above case of general rule 88(2) of the same Act, the amount of gift tax to be paid by the donor shall not be deemed a donation to the donee. Meanwhile, Article 34-3 of the Inheritance Tax Act provides that the person who has received payment to a third party shall be deemed to have received a donation equivalent to the benefits paid by the donee (the interpretation and application of tax laws and regulations under the principle of tax law shall be strictly permitted, and interpretation or expanded interpretation shall not be permitted, so the provisions of Article 25(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes shall not be applied jointly and severally.

Accordingly, in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings, the fact that the Plaintiff, who was a donee, did not dispose of the property donated until the payment of the gift tax of this case, and the above Kim Jong-mun did not receive a notice from the Defendant to pay the gift tax of this case. The above Kim Jong-sik did not believe that part of the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-sik was not trusted, and that part of the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-sik was contrary to this, and that the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-mun did not lead to determination of the above recognition, and the mere statement of the evidence of No. 6 through No. 111 was insufficient to support the above recognition, and since there was no counter-proof, it cannot be deemed that the above Kim Jong-mun paid the gift tax of this case as a joint and several taxpayer of this case, or that the Plaintiff paid the gift tax of this case to the above third party by borrowing the gift tax of this case.

As a result, the plaintiff, who is a third party, is exempted from the obligation of each gift tax of this case due to the payment of the non-party Kim ○, who is the third party, and therefore, is deemed to have been donated a benefit pursuant to the provisions of Article 34-3 of the Inheritance Tax Act, so the defendant's disposition of this case, which calculated the amount equivalent to the amount of gift tax of this case as

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking revocation on the premise that the disposition of this case is unlawful is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of this case are assessed against the losing party and so decided as per Disposition.