2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff, his father, died on June 4, 200, succeeded jointly with the Plaintiff’s mother, KimA, and Doz., the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares (hereinafter “instant land”), among which the Plaintiff’s inheritance shares are 2/7 shares (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On September 27, 2002, KimA on behalf of the minor plaintiff, registered the transfer of ownership based on the sale of the instant land to KimE, one's own Dong KimE on behalf of the minor plaintiff, and KimE registered the transfer of ownership based on the sale of the said land to KimE on December 24, 2004.

C. On December 24, 2004, the Defendant deemed that the Plaintiff donated the instant land to KimA (hereinafter “instant donation”) on December 24, 2004, pursuant to Article 44(1) and (2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and imposed gift tax of KRW 77,109,110 on the KimA on June 1, 2009.

D. On August 3, 2009, the Defendant designated the Plaintiff, who was the donor, as a joint and several taxpayer for gift tax, on the ground that KimA did not have the ability to pay the gift tax and it is difficult to secure the tax claim even after taking a disposition on default, and issued a notice of payment of the gift tax at the same time (hereinafter “instant designated disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the designation disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

① The gift of this case is null and void as the legal representative, KimA, a minor, made on behalf of the Plaintiff regardless of the Plaintiff’s will. ② Even if that is not, the transfer of ownership is made in sequence to KimA through KimE with respect to the Plaintiff’s share in the land of this case constitutes each title trust, and thus, cannot be deemed to be a donation. Therefore, since the gift of this case is null and void, the imposition of the gift tax on KimA is illegal, and it is unlawful in the history of the designation disposition of this case where the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

C. Determination

According to Article 921(1) of the Civil Act, a person with parental authority who is a legal representative and his/her legal representative shall request a court to appoint a special representative. The act of conflict in interest refers to an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between a person with a parental authority and his/her legal representative by virtue of the objective nature of the act in this context, and whether there is a conflict of interest as a result of a person with parental authority’s intent or its act is not asked (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da6680, Sept. 9, 199).

According to the above facts, KimA transferred the land of this case on behalf of the plaintiff who is a person with parental authority on behalf of the plaintiff as a minor KimE, and later transferred the said land to himself/herself, which is deemed to have been donated to him/her. Since such donation is an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest between KimA, a person with parental authority, and the plaintiff due to the objective nature of the act, such act is an act that is likely to cause conflict of interest, and thus, the above donation is invalid, unless there is a circumstance that the special representative was appointed for the plaintiff and the above donation was made by his/her agent, and it cannot be deemed that the above donation was deemed to have been deemed to have been deemed to have been deemed to have been deemed to have been a legal fiction under tax-related Acts. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence above, the above donation

Therefore, the designation of this case, which imposes joint and several tax liability on the plaintiff based on the duty to pay gift tax on KimA, which is acknowledged on the premise that the gift of this case takes effect, shall be deemed illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this issue

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the designated disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.