2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

The Defendant’s disposition of imposing gift tax of KRW 000 on the Plaintiff on November 11, 2009 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Whether the disposition of this case is legitimate

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion, (b) relevant laws and regulations (from the second to the fourth nineth (from the second to the fourth nineth) are as follows: The grounds for the judgment of the first instance is as follows. Pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the relevant part shall be cited.

O The following shall be added to the second nineth day:

On February 6, 2002, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement of XXdong 6 302, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and used 000 won out of the returned lease deposit, 000 won of wage and salary income deposited from 2002, and 000 won of the term deposit termination money as the purchase fund.

O 2nd 10th 10, the plaintiff and Isa shall be deemed to be "the plaintiff".

O The following shall be added to the second below 4th:

At the time, the apartment market price of this case was approximately KRW 000.

2. Part to be used again; and

C. Facts of recognition

On June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff and thisA drafted a sales contract (No. 5, No. 3, hereinafter referred to as "the sales contract of this case") dated June 30, 2005, and the contents thereof are as follows.

ThisA transfers to the Plaintiff the entire share of the instant apartment to KRW 000. The down payment of KRW 000 and KRW 000 of the first intermediate payment of KRW 000 on the date of the contract, KRW 000 on August 30, 2005, and KRW 000 on the third intermediate payment of KRW 00 on April 8, 2006, and KRW 00 on November 28, 2006, respectively.

On June 30, 2005, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 000 from the Plaintiff’s account that managed KRW 000,000 to the ForeignA account, withdrawn KRW 000 on July 8, 2005, KRW 000 on August 31, 2005, and KRW 000 on April 11, 2006, and transferred KRW 000 to the ForeignA account on November 28, 2006.

ThisA received KRW 000 as part of the purchase price of the apartment of this case on July 8, 2005 (Evidence A 13-1) and a receipt (Evidence A 13-2) that received KRW 000 as part of the purchase price of the apartment of this case on August 31, 2005, and issued to the Plaintiff.

ThisA, from July 13, 2005 to 1445-4 O118, an OO-dong 1445-4, an O118, and entered into a lease agreement with ParkB on August 21, 2006, under which an O 500 won (O507) was the director on October 1, 2006.

On August 8, 2006, the Plaintiff is thisA and the father’s mother is the joint lessor and prepared a real estate lease agreement (Evidence No. 11 No. 5) with the Plaintiff as the joint lessee on August 8, 2006, thisCC and the MaximumD leased the housing on August 10, 2006, Seoul Jongno-gu 1-116 ground and reside in the apartment in this case, together with the Plaintiff from November 2, 2006 to November 2, 2006.

The GFF, a lessee of the apartment of this case, received KRW 000 from EA on August 8, 2006 and KRW 000 from EA on the 30th of the same month.

ThisA had not returned to the Republic of Korea since January 24, 2008 to the United States, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the results of the tax investigation on October 20, 2009.

The plaintiff served in Aa High School from March 1, 2002, and the present position is an assistant principal.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, 10 through 15, 17, 18, 19, Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and the whole purport of the pleading

D. Determination

1) Under Article 45(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9269, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act"), where it is difficult to recognize that the property was acquired with financial resources considering the occupation, age, income, property status, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the funds for acquiring the property shall be presumed to have been donated to the person who acquired the property, and shall be deemed to have been donated to the

Whether it is difficult for the Plaintiff to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant apartment 1/2 shares in his/her own account of occupation, age, income, property status, etc. must be proved by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff does not seem to fall under the case where it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired the instant apartment 1/2 shares with its own funds. The reasons are as follows.

① The Plaintiff was owned by receiving KRW 000,000 from the TitleF to the instant account. However, even if the Plaintiff and thisA jointly own the instant apartment, the Plaintiff was the lessee, and thus, the obligation to return the apartment is borne by the Plaintiff. 00 won deposited in the Plaintiff’s account is the Plaintiff. Even if KRW 00,000 out of the above KRW 00, was actually AA, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff had taken over the obligation to return the deposit owed by the Plaintiff while entering into the instant sales contract, and thus, the remainder of KRW 00 was also the Plaintiff. The sales price under the instant sales contract is KRW 00,000, and the said KRW 00 and interest may be paid as profit (Article 34(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act shall not be presumed to have been donated to the amount used directly for the acquisition of the relevant property in money).

② The Plaintiff did not have a little age since 1964, and was employed as a teacher at a high school from March 1, 2002, and had a stable occupation in the position of assistant principal and received a certain income as an assistant principal.

③ On July 8, 2005, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 000 as the first intermediate payment, and KRW 000 as the third intermediate payment on August 31, 2005, and KRW 100 as the third intermediate payment on April 11, 2006, respectively, at the Plaintiff’s account. The Plaintiff prepared a receipt that the Plaintiff received intermediate payment on October 1, 2006 [the Defendant, from October 1, 2006 to 507, the 2000 OO on June 30, 2005, and the 200O on June 30, 2005, the 205O appears to have been replaced by the 205O on June 30, 2005, and it is difficult to view that the 205O was made by the Defendant to have made a false entry on the 50-year receipt.

④ The Plaintiff asserts that thisA was used as a director by leasing Nos. 1118 after receiving the first and second intermediate payments. This is persuasive in view that thisA was a director on July 13, 2005, under the heading 1445-4 OO118, Seoul OOO-gu, 1445-4, O118.

⑤ On April 11, 2006, the third intermediate payment payment date, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 000,000, which is the same as the third intermediate payment, and this day is likely to have deposited KRW 000 into its own account.

(6) The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s KRW 000 on August 8, 2006 and KRW 000 on August 30, 2006, paid KRW 1/200 to the KF and repaid the lease deposit of KRW 000 on August 30, 2006 to the KF, and thus, the source of the purchase and sale of the instant apartment of KRW 1/2 is the above KRW 000,00,000, which was paid by thisA and the MaximumD. However, even if this Plaintiff paid KRW 00 (95%) out of the purchase and sale shares of the instant apartment of KRW 1/2, which was paid by this case to thisA on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot be presumed to have made a donation, apart from the fact that thisA and MaximumD made a donation of the lease deposit of KRW 000 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant disposition is lawful since this case’s and tear repaid the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 000,000, which was borne by the Plaintiff.

In an appeal litigation seeking the revocation of an administrative disposition, a disposition agency may add or alter other reasons only to the extent that the original reason and basic factual relations are recognized to be identical, and the existence or absence of such basic factual relations is determined based on whether the underlying facts are identical in terms of basic social facts, based on the specific facts before the grounds for disposition are legally assessed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Du19021, Nov. 24, 201). It is different from the gift of the purchase price of the instant apartment 1/2 shares and the donation by redeeming the lease deposit deposit with the repayment of the lease deposit amount of KRW 000. The factual relations are not identical in a basic point.

3. Conclusion