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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 3,274,367,400 against the Plaintiff on January 6, 2014 is revoked.

A. On January 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim for redemption of the bearer national housing bond purchased in the name of the borrower (hereinafter referred to as the “registered national housing bond of this case”). On January 17, 2006, the Plaintiff acquired the national housing bond of KRW 4.147 billion in total (hereinafter referred to as the “bonds of this case”).

B. On February 7, 2012, the Director of theCC: (a) conducted a partial investigation of the portion of inheritance tax and gift tax on Non-Party EE (the decedent’s father, the Plaintiff’s father, the death on November 2, 1996), EF (the Plaintiff’s birth) and net EG (the Plaintiff’s mother, the Plaintiff’s death on May 7, 2015), etc., and (b) confirmed that the Plaintiff, a female of E and EG, acquired the instant claim, and notified the Defendant of the taxation data to verify the source, etc. of the acquisition fund.

C. From December 31, 2012 to June 3, 2013, the Defendant conducted a survey of the source of the instant claim acquisition fund, and then applied Article 45(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter “Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”) to “the Plaintiff is presumed to have received donation from the Plaintiff’s motherG on January 10, 2006,” and on January 6, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of gift tax of KRW 3,274,367,40 (including additional tax) (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. Accordingly, on April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a request with the Tax Tribunal for a tax trial, but was dismissed on September 29, 2014.

E. On January 10, 2006, the Defendant added the ground for preliminary disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff received the donation of the bearer bonds of this case from the GG during the proceeding of the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 17, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The non-existence of donation claim

The Plaintiff did not have received a donation from the GG for the acquisition of the instant claim. This is without having repeatedly repeated the acquisition of bearer bonds, etc. in the name of its executives and employees before the death. The Plaintiff was paid his share in the instant bearer bonds, among the inherited property, which was managed in the name of the tea from the inheritance commenced by the death of the E, around December 2000, in the name of EE, from the officers and employees of EH and Han II, and thereafter, the Plaintiff acquired the instant bearer bonds, and kept them in the custody on January 10, 206, and was repaid the instant bearer bonds in the name of the Plaintiff on January 10, 206. Accordingly, the instant bearer bonds were purchased from E in the name of E, not donated from thisGG for the purchase by the Plaintiff of the inherited property (the FFF, who was the birth of the Plaintiff, claimed that all inherited property, such as the bonds managed in the name of the tea, and paid the inheritance tax. The Plaintiff did not receive the instant bearer bonds on the date of donation.

2) The assertion that the provision on presumption of gift under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act is not applicable

1) As alleged in paragraph (1), the presumption of gift under Articles 44(1) and 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act cannot be applied since the Plaintiff acquired the instant bearer claim with the funds for repayment of the claim inherited. Furthermore, for the application of the presumption of gift under Article 44(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the presumption of gift under Article 44(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act should be premised on the fact that the instant bearer claim was owned by thisG before the Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff. Such fact was not proven. In addition, for the application of the presumption of gift under Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the fact that the instant claim cannot be acquired with the financial ability of the Plaintiff in light of the Plaintiff’s occupation, income, property, etc., and the fact that thisGG had the financial ability to donate the instant bearer claim. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff donated and inherited property from thisE was KRW 13 billion from around 200, the provision on the presumption of gift cannot be applied.

3) The allegation of illegality in imposing penalty tax

The relationship between the acquisition of bearer bonds of this case and the acquisition of the EE with the inherited property left by the Defendant was known to the Defendant through a tax investigation with respect to EF and EG, and there was no tax investigation or taxation disposition with respect to the Plaintiff, and there was no justifiable reason to deem that the Plaintiff was not aware of the obligation to report and pay. As such, the portion of penalty tax in this case’s disposition is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) As to the principal tax claim

A) The Defendant, as its primary reason for disposition, declared that the Plaintiff is presumed to have received the instant bearer claim from thisG pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, and that the Plaintiff was actually presumed to have received the instant bearer claim from thisG as the primary reason for disposition. As such, first of all, it is determined in relation to the primary reason for disposition.

B) Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act provides that "in cases where it is difficult to recognize that assets were acquired by means of their own means in view of their occupation, age, income, property status, etc., as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, the acquisition fund of the pertinent property shall be presumed to have been donated to the acquisitor at the time of the acquisition of the relevant property and shall be deemed to have been donated to the purchaser of the relevant property." Paragraph (3) of the same Article provides that "in cases where the relevant acquisition fund or repayment fund falls below the amount as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in consideration of their occupation, age, income, property status, etc. and there is sufficient vindication as to the source of the

Article 34(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22042, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act") provides that where the sum of the amount of income reported or taxable (including cases where taxes are non-taxable or reduced; hereinafter the same shall apply in this Article), the amount of the returned or taxable property (title 1); the value of the inherited or donated property (title 2); the amount of money or debt received in return for the disposal of the property; and the amount of money used directly for the acquisition of the property or the repayment of the obligation (title 3) is less than

In principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is a matter to be proved by the tax authority, so if the tax authority establishes a certain occupation as at the time of acquisition of the property, and there is a person who actually had considerable income from the acquisition of the property, the portion of the fund required for the acquisition of the property cannot be deemed as having been donated to another person, unless there are special circumstances. However, if a person without a certain occupation or income does not have any funds to clearly indicate the source of the fund required for the acquisition of the property, barring any special circumstances, it is reasonable to presume that the fund was donated from the person with a real history when the lineal ascendant or spouse is able to donate the property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Nu7205, Apr. 8, 197). In order to estimate the donation, the tax authority must prove that the donee had any financial ability sufficient to donate the property to the donor, such as the acquisition of the property by means of a separate statement from the said funds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du9848, Jul. 2222, 20198).

C) According to Gap evidence Nos. 12 and 35 (including a Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 5, the plaintiff's total amount of property inherited and donated from E is about 15 billion won (DDR's shares 28,937 shares 10,935,957,851 shares, JJJ Co., Ltd., 23,138 shares 23,013,006,000, and 2.1 billion won in total of KK's insurance proceeds from 1999 to 206. However, the plaintiff's total amount of property reported to the amount of labor income from 199 to 206 is not equivalent to the amount of money sold, insurance money received by E, wage and salary income, so the plaintiff does not constitute a dispute between the parties to this case's property status and debt acquisition of the claim of this case (i.e., the "property acquisition of the claim of this case".

D) In order to exclude the presumption of donation under Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, the Plaintiff’s repayment of bearer bonds of this case as the source of financing for the acquisition of the instant bonds, and to exclude the presumption of donation under Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act, it should be recognized that the instant bearer bonds were reverted to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff acquired the said funds by its own means (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu615, Mar. 27, 1992). It is difficult to view that the foregoing facts were recognized as evidence, such as the confirmation (Evidence A9) in the name of the GG, the acquisition of the instant bearer bonds of this case, and the financial materials related to the acquisition and repayment of the instant bearer bonds

① There is no details that the Plaintiff reported and paid taxes such as gift tax and inheritance tax with respect to claims managed under the name of a borrower.

② According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 9 and 11 through 14, the name assets of this E were inherited by this E’s will. This G was a start-up owner who established a DD group in collaboration with this E, and has considerable influence on the management of the company including the management of the funds. From around 1993, Park Jong-K, etc. in charge of the management of the DD industry and the date of start-up, in accordance with the direction of this G, directly stored claims, all passbooks, all pages, seals, stocks, bills, cash, etc., were kept in the name of the employees, and all of these tasks were carried out with the approval of this GG. It is difficult for this GG employees to view that the D group’s employees were in charge of managing the borrowed and borrowed accounts, borrowed and borrowed claims, and that the size of the D group’s assets was not well known within the scope of the DG employees’ claims.

③ According to the financial data (Evidence No. 6) submitted by the Plaintiff, around 200, 200, the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff was inherited property and sold or cash deposited in the financial account under the name of this H and Han II, and that the claim was released by purchasing another claim out of the bond sale fund or deposited funds. The data alone is not confirmed as to whether the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and whether the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement in its name while holding the bonds purchased from the above financial account. In addition, in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the GG, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff submitted the financial data as above and the fact that the Plaintiff was the actual owner of the bonds or cash traded from the above financial account.

④ The confirmation (Evidence No. 9) of the name of this GG merely provides that "I confirm that the plaintiff's acquisition of bearer bonds of this case is jointly inherited property that is the inherited property of the E president, and that the non-exclusive inherited property is inherited to the EF." ( contrary to this, in the E will deed signed and prepared by the testator, witness, attorney-at-law in charge, etc., it is difficult to recognize credibility in light of the plaintiff's relationship with the E will, etc., while clearly stating the list of inherited property and the donee's specific inheritance, it is difficult to recognize credibility in light of the plaintiff and the E will deed prepared by the testator, witness, attorney-at-law, etc.

⑤ According to the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 38 and 42, the regional tax office found, as a result of the investigation of the portion of inheritance tax with respect to EF from March 201 to December 201, 201, that the EF did not report and pay inheritance tax on the national housing bonds of KRW 73,527,360,207. Accordingly, the EF reported and paid inheritance tax on the national housing bonds around December 30, 201, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above evidence and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were included in the subject of taxation of inheritance tax reported and paid by EF.

E) As seen earlier, thisG, along with EE, managed a large number of borrowed accounts, borrowed stocks, and borrowed-name bonds for a period of several hundreds. From 2005 to 2012, it is recognized that thisG has donated cash, stocks, etc. worth at least 56 billion won in total to its children, etc. from 29 times (Evidence No. 5). Thus, thisG may be deemed to have had the re-existent power to donate its property to the Plaintiff.

F) In light of these facts, it is legitimate for the Defendant to take the instant disposition by applying the presumption of gift under Article 45(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit. Inasmuch as the legality of the instant disposition is recognized based on the primary grounds for disposition, it is not determined as to the assertion related

2) As to the assertion on additional tax portion

A) Under the tax law, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, under the law without justifiable grounds, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, an additional tax is an administrative sanction imposed as prescribed by the law, and the taxpayer’s intentional and negligent acts do not constitute justifiable grounds that do not constitute a breach of duty (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Du4689, Nov. 13, 2002; 2002Du10780, Jun. 24, 2004).

B) The Plaintiff’s assertion is merely an assertion that there is a justifiable reason that does not cause any negligence on the part of a taxpayer who is liable to pay gift tax, even if the taxpayer fails to report or pay the gift tax before investigation or disposition by the tax authority is made, and that there is no intention or negligence on the part of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion alone cannot be deemed as a justifiable reason that does not cause any breach of duty. Therefore, the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.