2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The Defendant’s imposition of global income tax of KRW 375,641 as global income tax for the year 2001, and KRW 91,215,095 as global income tax for the year 2003 as of November 15, 2006, shall be revoked.

The reasons for the submission of this Court in this case shall be the same and additional parts as follows:

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420

A. On the 5th page 8, statement "," was made to the effect that the right to attend as a witness in the trial was lent KRW 30 million to Kim ○ through himself, and that the right was created the above collateral security by adding up obligations to the subsidiary office of Kim ○, an office of movable property intermediary, but was stated to the effect that the above collateral security was created.

B. Following the 5th 9th 'Failure to submit' (the 25th 9th 9th 'A' was found to have remitted KRW 200,000,000 to 00,000 won, October 22, 2001, and December 12, 2001, through the reorganization of the title leather, which is the son's children, by the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 25 and 41, and the above remittance is not deemed to have been a material for the borrowed money claimed by the plaintiff, even though it is recognized that the remittance was a material for the borrowed money that the plaintiff claims in light of the amount and time of the remittance.

(c) add the witness of the first instance trial to the witness of the first instance trial after the 'forth 16th 'each entry'.

D. As to the instant case at the time of Chapter 6th through 12, the pertinent sales contract, receipts, and building permit, etc. are all prepared in the Plaintiff’s name. After each transaction, the Plaintiff reported and paid acquisition tax, gift tax, capital gains tax, expenses and earnings from the transaction of the instant real estate including the said tax, and so there is no evidence to deem that Kim ○ exercised the real right as the actual owner of the instant real estate. Unlike other real estate in the case of △ Dong-dong site, the fact that Kim Do governor, who was in a de facto marital relationship with Kim ○, transferred the cause of donation to the Plaintiff, the mother of Kim ○ after cancelling de facto marital relationship with other real estate. However, such circumstance alone does not necessarily mean that the instant real estate was nominal in trust with the Plaintiff. In full view of the following, it is difficult to find that Kim ○-○ borrowed money from the site of △△△△△△, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge Gap evidence Nos. 3 to No. 136-1, evidence No. 36, evidence No. 1 to evidence No. 4-1, evidence No. 7, and evidence No. 7 of the Plaintiff evidence No.

D. Each entry of No. 2-1 and No. 2 of No. 6 of the 7th 6th 'A' is not believed to be 'A evidence 2-1 and 2, and the testimony of the witness Kim Jong-in of the first instance court is not believed to be 'the 7th 'the 7th 'the 'the 's 'the 's 'the 'the 's 'the 'the 's 'the 'the 'the 's 'the '

2. Consultations

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.