2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s DongB died on December 10, 2008, and HaCC, the mother of ParkB, did not report inheritance tax.

B. On December 28, 2006, the Defendant conducted a tax investigation and sold 00 won of 00 OOO2, 000 large scale and 337 square meters of housing owned by Dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and 126.17 square meters of housing on its ground (hereinafter “OO-dong housing”), and on December 15, 2006, the Plaintiff used 000 won out of the purchase price of OO-dong housing (hereinafter “the instant funds”), on the ground that the Plaintiff, on December 14, 2010, sold 00 won of gift tax (hereinafter “the instant disposition”).

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on March 11, 2011, and received a decision of dismissal from the Tax Tribunal on June 28, 2011.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious private and Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including household numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff acquired an OO-dong house under the name of ParkB, and used part of the pride in the OO-dong house, since it was only returned the trusted real estate, and the disposition of this case based on the premise that the gift was received is unfair.

B. Facts of recognition

(1) Circumstances of real estate sales

(A) The ParkF, who is the father of the Plaintiff, was deceased on August 20, 195 due to the expiration of the adjudication of disappearance on August 20, 1955. The registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff on April 4, 1958 on the ground that the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City YF-ro 2 was 64-6 site and 301 site.

(B) After that, the Plaintiff newly constructed a building on the above site, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Plaintiff on December 22, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Blue real estate by combining the above site and its ground buildings”)

(C) On October 29, 1981, the Plaintiff (around 1979, the Plaintiff acquired U.S. citizenship) sold real estate to the GG, etc. on behalf of the Plaintiff at KRW 00,00 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

(2) OOO-dong housing trading circumstances

(A) On November 27, 1984, HCC purchased OOdong housing under the name of ParkB, and lived together with Park H and his spouse Kim II at that place (the source of the purchase is unclear).

(B) On December 28, 2006, Park H sold OOdong housing at KRW 000, and the details of the purchase price are as follows:

(3) LCC and LH’s living form

(A) HaCC and Hase-Pak had been living after the Plaintiff’s immigration as rent for lease of YA real estate, and after the sale of YA real estate, it had been living as interest income from deposit in a bank after the sale of YA, and according to the integrated national tax system electronic data, the income details of HaCC and YB are not confirmed.

(B) From the time ParkB had been suffering from mental fissiontic pain, and due to impossibility of normal life, LCC’s protection was maintained under the protection of LCC. LH concealed these circumstances, and married with the most JJ on January 25, 1973 (the declaration of marriage was made on March 9, 1973), but was divorced on February 11, 1979, and immediately after the marriage with Kim II (the declaration of marriage was made on January 10, 1985), it was divorced on July 23, 1990 under the condition that 00 won was paid as consolation money.

(4) Contents of the statements of the relevant person framework

(A) HaCC Fact-verification

(b) a confirmation of the facts of the GG.

(C) Kim II's testimony

(d) The testimony of KK;

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 18 (including household numbers), Eul evidence 1 through 8 (including household numbers), the witness Kim II, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

C. Determination

(1) As above, in light of the fact that since 1979, ParkB lived with the Plaintiff’s income from the rent for the real estate or from the interest on the purchase price for the Chungcheong Domination, the statements made by HaCC and HaK correspond thereto, and it is difficult to deem that Park H had an independent revenue source in light of the mental ability of HahH, it can be recognized that OOB acquired the house as the purchase price for the Hamination real estate.

(2) 나아가 박HH 명의로 취득한 OOO동 주택이 원고가 명의신탁한 부동산인지에 관하여 보건대， OOO동 취득 당시 원고가 미국 시민권자였기 때문에 자선의 명의로 국내 부동산을 취득할 수 없는 사정은 인정된다. 그러나 원고는 1955. 8.20. 호주를 상속하면서 당시 적용되던 의용민법에 의하여 부(父)인 박FF의 충무로부동산을 단독 상속하였으므로，박HH은 원고에게 분재청구권을 가지고 있었던 점， 박HH은 1979년경 김II와 결혼하였는데， 1984. 11. 27. OOO동 주택을 취득한 이후인 1985. 1. 10. 혼인선고를 마친 점， 하CC은 "박HH이 자녀를 출산하여 이들과 함께 평생 같이 살기 위해 박효출 명의로 OOO동 주택을 취득하였다"는 취지의 사실확인서를 작성한 점， 충무로부동산의 매매대금이 000원에 비하여， OOO동 주택을 취득하기 위해 지출한 돈은 1984.11. 27 당사를 기준으로 극히 일부에 지나지 않았을 것 으로 보이는 점，하CC이 원고의 동의 없이 박BB 명의로 OOO동 주택을 취득하였 다고 주장하고 있고，원고는 박HH으로부터 명의를 반환받기 위하여 노력한 흔적이 없는 점(즉，하CC이 박HH의 분재에 해당하는 재산을 마련해 주었다고 볼 수 있다)，OOO동 주택의 매매대금 중 이 사건 자금을 제외한 나머지는 하CC과 박BB의 생 활비， 치료비 등으로 소비된 점， 박BB의 사망으로 전 ・ 후 관계를 확인할 방법이 없는 이상 하QQ의 진술을 그대로 믿을 수 없고， 대외적 명의로 된 자가 소유자로 추단되 는 점 등을 고려할 때，원고가 "박HH 명의로 OOO동 주택을 취득하였다"기 보다 "박HH을 위하여(장남으로서 박BB에게 재산을 분재하고，정상적인 가정생활을 가칠 수 있도록) OOO동 주택을 마련해 주었다 (원고가 하CC의 충무로부동산 매매대금을 이용한 OOO동 주택 취득행위를 묵시적으로 동의하는 방식으로)고 봄이 타당하다.

(3) Therefore, the OO-dong housing is owned by ParkB, and the Plaintiff’s use of the instant funds is deemed to have been donated by Park H. Therefore, the instant disposition based thereon is justifiable.

3. Conclusion

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