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

(a) AB and KimCC in relation to the Plaintiff are parents, euD, euE, and euF are siblings, and the lowestG are husband.

B. On June 26, 2009, AB reported and paid KRW 000 of the inheritance tax on behalf of the heir, AB, ADD, and KimCC on behalf of the heir. < Amended by Act No. 9800, Dec. 26, 2009>

C. As a result of the inheritance tax investigation on the deceasedB(hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”), the head of the same tax office notified the result of the investigation that the return of 000 won (real property 000 won, financial property 000 won) was omitted, and determined and notified that the total amount of 00 won of the inheritance tax and 000 won of the gift tax is determined and notified to the KimCC, the plaintiff, and ED, and EdD (CD’s wife).

D. Along with the foregoing prior donation property, AD, KimCC, the plaintiff, and the beneficiary company filed a request for a review of tax prior to taxation by asserting that most of the financial assets are deposits owned by the deceased, which were managed as a borrowed account (the details of the borrowed account claimed by the above inheritors are the same as the attached Table 1), and according to this, the head of the tax office at the same time revoked the disposition of gift tax (the details of the borrowed account additionally confirmed in the process of the above investigation are the same as the attached Table 2) after re-audit of the inheritance and determined that the above assertion was reasonable, and most of the funds withdrawn from the borrowed account were used as real estate acquisition funds of the successors. Among them, the parts on the plaintiff's husband lastG among them are as listed below (the number stated in the withdrawal account column in the table below means the number listed in the attached Tables 1 and 2, and the account number in the name of the BB account in the name of Taesansan real estate is the Gyeongyang branch in the following table).

2) Accordingly, the head of each competent tax office identified 000 won (real estate 000 won, financial property 000 won) and 000 won of inherited property and determined and notified inheritance tax and gift tax. Among them, the portion of gift tax on the Plaintiff and the largestG is as follows (the Defendant made the above disposition to the Plaintiff on November 5, 2010, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”).

E. On January 27, 201, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the instant disposition with the Defendant, but did not bring the objection, and filed a request for review on May 20 of the same year, but was dismissed on September 2 of the same year.

F. Since then, as seen below, the Defendant partially accepted the Plaintiff’s assertion and the largestG, revoked the disposition imposing gift tax on the largestG, and ex officio corrected the instant disposition against the Plaintiff.

1) Part of OO real estate

피고는 OO리 부동산을 원고， 최GG， 김CC이 김QQ로부터 000원에 매수(지분 비율은 원고，최GG이 각 31.25%，김CC이 37.5%이다) 할 때 그 매수 자금을 망인으로부터 증여받은 것으로 보고，그 수증 재산 각 000원에 대하여 증여세를 부과하였으나， 원고와 최GG이 제출한 계약서와 금융자료를 확인한 결과 qq평리 부동산의 실제 매매대금은 000원이고，그 중 최GG의 지분비율에 해당 하는 매매대금 000원( = 000원 x 0.3125)을 최GG이 자신의 자금으로 지급한 사실을 인정하여，2012. 5. 14. 그 증여세 000원 부과처분을 직권 취소하였다.

2) Part of OO real estate

The Defendant: (a) deemed that the Plaintiff and Ansan acquired 1/2 shares of 00 each of 1/2 shares of 00 OD on the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share in the purchase price; (b) it imposed gift tax on the part corresponding to the Plaintiff’s share in the purchase price; (c) as a result of confirmation, it acquired 1/2 shares in each of the 1/2 shares of 000 land in the same Ri; (d) it verified that DoD acquired DoD alone; and (e) on March 21, 2006 of the instant disposition on March 24, 2012, the amount of the gift amount adjusted from 00 won to 00 won (the same portion of land corresponding to 00,000 won), and (e) reduced the total amount of the gift amount from 00 billion won to 00 billion won to 00 billion won to 00 billion won to 14 April 14, 2014 to 00.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap 1, 4, 7, 10 (including household numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Eul 1 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Claims on OO-owned real estate

OO-dong real estate purchase price of KRW 193,240,00,00 was paid from the account under the name of AD on July 26, 2004 (ayang No. 30, 2-8 account). The amount was paid from the account under the name of AD on July 22, 2004, and the amount was paid from the Plaintiff’s mother to the above account under the name of ADD on July 22, 2004. Thus, the Plaintiff’s mother, who was the Plaintiff’s mother, was paid from the account under the name of AD on July 22, 2004, and deposited into the said account under the name of AD. In conclusion, it should be considered to have been received from the KimCC, and since there was a fact that the Plaintiff had been charged KRW 00,000 to the KimCC, it should be reduced from KRW 000 ( = 000 x500

2) Claims as to OO real estate

Of the purchase price of OG real estate 000 won, the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff and the largestG's share (each of 31.25%) is 00 won, and the Plaintiff bears 000 won among them, and the maximumG bears 000 won among them. Therefore, despite the Plaintiff and the maximumG's donation amount, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff and the Defendant donated the total amount of KRW 000 (each of 00 won) to be donated to the Plaintiff and the maximumG (each of 000 won). Accordingly, the Defendant issued the instant disposition, which is the portion exceeding 00 won out of the gift amount identified by the Defendant, ( = 00 won -00 won), and that of that portion, the amount should be reduced to KRW 00,000, as the maximumG portion is 00,000, and that amount should be reduced to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the assertion on O-owned real estate

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff's account under the name of KimCC (attached No. 2-8) that is the source of money deposited in the account under the above name of the deceased as well as the name account of the deceased (attached No. 1-9) is identical to the facts that the plaintiff is the name account of the deceased. Thus, the purchase fund of OO real estate should be presumed to be donated to the deceased. However, according to the statements in Gap 1, 2, and 3, and Eul 1 through 3, and evidence No. 1 through 3, the plaintiff's wage earned by working at BB Music Research Institute is merely 00 won for 204 and 205 and 000 won for 193 and 207 until 2007, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not have any other evidence that the plaintiff did not have any other reasons to prove that the plaintiff did not have any real estate for 100 million won since 193 to 2007, and that the plaintiff did not have any other reasons for the above 1000 million won.

2) Determination as to the assertion on OO real estate

갑 제1， 5， 10호증， 을 제2， 9， 10호증의 각 기재에 의하면 망인이 2005. 7. 25. 김QQ과 사이에 OO리 부동산을 000원에 매수하는 계약을 체결한 사실， 위 매매대금 중 000원은 김CC 명의로 된 망인의 차명계좌(부경양돈농협 ，，별지1 순번 1-4， 1-2 계좌)에서 출금된 금원 이고， 나머지 000원은 잔금 지급일인 2005. 9. 26. 최GG 명의의 예금계좌(aa양돈농협)에서 인출된 금원인 사실，원고와 최GG은 OO리 부동산 중 31.25%의 지분을 취득하였고，김CC이 37.5%의 지분을 취득한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바 이에 의하면 OO리 부동산의 매수대금 중 원고의 지분에 해당하는 000원은 원고가 망인으로부터 증여받은 것으로 추단된다고 할 것인 반면， 원고가 자신의 지분에 해당하는 매수대금 000원 중 000원을 부담한 사실을 인정할 증거가 없고，또 최GG 명의의 예금계좌에서 인출된 000원을 원고의 자금으로 볼 만한 증거가 없으며， 갑 제5호증의 기재에 의하면 최GG이 2008. 8. 11. 망인의 계좌(부경양돈농협)로 000원을 송금한 사실은 인정되나 앞서 본 것처럼 최GG의 지분에 해당하는 매수대금 000만 봄이 최GG 명의의 예금계좌(aa양돈농협)에서 인출되어 지급된 점，OO리 부동산에 대한 매매거래 가 있은 때로부터 3년이 지난 후에 매수자금을 송금한다는 것은 극히 이례적일 뿐만 아니라 망인이 2008. 12. 22. 최GG에게 000원을 반환한 점에 비추어 이는 OO리 부동산 매매계약과는 무관하고 단지 최GG과 망인 사이의 금전거래로 보일 뿐이고，달리 위 추정을 깨뜨릴 만한 증거가 없다. 따라서 이 부분 주장 역사 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

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