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

Cheong-gu Office

The disposition of imposition of KRW 17,937,910 imposed by the defendant on October 11, 2005 with respect to the disposition of imposition of gift tax, etc. shall be revoked.

A. On March 15, 2005, the Plaintiff purchased the purchase price of KRW 50,00,00 between ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “multi-unit housing”) for KRW 50,00,00; KRW 50,000 for intermediate payment of KRW 120,000 for KRW 380,00 for the remainder on April 6, 2005; KRW 380,000 for KRW 305,00 for the gift tax of KRW 205,00 for KRW 30,00 for the gift tax of KRW 205,00 for KRW 305,00 for the gift tax of KRW 205,00 for the gift tax of KRW 300,000 for the gift tax of KRW 305,00,000 for the gift tax of KRW 205.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5.7, 10-2, Eul evidence 1 to 7

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

“The Plaintiff, after graduating from a high school in 2000, received KRW 17,200,000 per month from January 2003 to November 25, 2000 per month a total of KRW 13,200,000 per month from ○○○ Underground Sales Complex to KRW 1,200,000 per month from ○○○○ Underground Sales Complex, and the disposition of KRW 13,200,000 per month from November 28, 203 to May 30, 204, the Plaintiff received benefits from ○○○○○○○○○○○○’s gift tax to 12,00,00,000 per month from ○○○○○○○’s gift tax to ○○○○○○○’s gift tax to 1,205, respectively.

[Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act]

Article 45 Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Property Acquisition

(1) Where it is difficult to recognize that a person acquired the relevant property by his/her own means in view of his/her occupation, age, income and property status, etc., as prescribed by Presidential Decree, the funds for acquiring the relevant property shall be presumed to have been donated to the person who acquired the relevant property

(3) The provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to cases where the relevant acquisition fund or repayment fund falls below the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree in consideration of occupation, age, income, property status, etc. and where sufficient vindication exists on the source of the relevant acquisition fund or repayment fund.

[Enforcement Decree of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act]

Article 34 Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Property Acquisition

(1) The term “cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” listed in Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Act means cases where the sum of the amounts verified under the following subparagraphs falls short of the value of the acquired property or the amount of repayment of debts: Provided, That this shall not include cases where the amount not attested falls short of the smaller of the value of the acquired property or the amount equivalent to 20/100

1. The amount of income which has been reported or received the taxation (including the cases of non-taxation or reduction or exemption; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article);

2. The value of inherited or donated property which has been reported or received a taxation;

3. The amount of money or liabilities received in return for the disposal of the properties, and used directly for the acquisition of the properties or the redemption of such obligations;

C. Facts of recognition

(1) The Plaintiff was 25 years of age as of December 14, 1980 at the time of the instant sales contract.

(2) The director of the tax office of ○○○○-20,000 won out of 50,000 won of down payment was withdrawn from the ○○○-2,000 account (○○-3,000 won) on March 15, 2005, and 43,000 won was remitted to ○○○○○○-2,00 won (○○-4,000 won) on April 11, 2005, which was 40,000 won out of the remainder to ○○○○-3,000 won (○○○-4,000 won was removed from the ○○○-4,000’s account (○○○-4,000 won) on the part of the Plaintiff’s ○○-3,000 won (○○-4,000 won) on the part of the Plaintiff’s ○○-3,000 won.

(3) On the other hand, the head of ○○ Tax Office borrowed KRW 70,000,000 from Lee ○○○ on April 4, 2005, an intermediate payment of KRW 120,000 from KRW 70,00,00,000 and KRW 130,000,000 from Lee ○○○○○ on the other hand and paid to Song○ on April 6, 2005. Of the remainder, KRW 206,00,000 out of the remainder, 20,000,000 from the remainder of the loan was respectively taken over by the Plaintiff, and confirmed that KRW 30,00,00 is the pension insurance amount of ○○○○○○○○ on April 20, 200, and KRW 30,000 and the remainder of the above loan amount was paid from each of the above loan amount.

(4) On July 28, 2005, the Plaintiff paid gift tax to KRW 31,00,000 on March 15, 2005 by borrowing KRW 20,000 from ○○○○○, while the Plaintiff paid as part of the down payment by borrowing KRW 70,00,00 from ○○○○○○○, and the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 70,000 from ○○○○○○, and paid the remainder of the payment for the benefits it received while working for ○○○○○○○○○. However, the Defendant did not prepare a loan contract with ○○○, and the notarial deed on July 14, 2005, which was drawn up between ○○○○ and the ○○○○○○○, corresponds to KRW 70,00,000, which was borrowed at the time of the payment of the intermediate payment, and confirmed that the Plaintiff did not submit the details of specific benefits to the National Tax Service’s computerized data.

[Identification Evidence] Evidence No. 3-1, 2, Evidence No. 8, Evidence No. 2-1 to 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

[Evidence Evidence] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2-1, 2-2, and 3 of Evidence No. 1-2, and testimony of Witness ○○○

D. Determination

(1) As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of a property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is proven by the tax authority. Thus, even if the tax authority has a significant refeasible power with a certain occupation at the time of acquisition of the property, and if a person who had a substantial income therefrom does not offer daily funds required for the acquisition of the property, it cannot be presumed that the portion of the funds required for the acquisition of the property is donated to another person, unless there are special circumstances, to the effect that the donation was made by the other person, barring special circumstances. However, if a person who has no occupation or income does not have any money sufficient to make a payment for the pertinent property, and if his lineal ascendant, etc. has a sufficient refas

(2) As seen above, it is reasonable to view that the key issue amount is not the amount borrowed from the income or relative, etc. received by the Plaintiff while working for an establishment that sells alcoholic beverages, but it is deemed that the ○○○○ was donated by the Plaintiff, based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff appears to have no independent credit as well as its ability to prepare the key amount without any special occupation or income; (b) the Plaintiff proved that the Plaintiff borrowed from friendly, etc.; or (c) the amount remaining in the Plaintiff’s bank account was all recognized as the acquisition fund of the apartment of this case; and (d) the key amount of the acquisition fund of the apartment of this case was withdrawn from ○○, the Plaintiff’s mother, and remitted to the Plaintiff or the seller’s account.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.