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

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the reasoning is accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, at the request of his father, Kim △△△△, was ordering Kim △△ to open the instant account to Kim △△△, which was the bad credit standing, and the KRW 500 million deposited, regardless of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff used Kim △△△ for the acquisition of management rights of the AAAA (hereinafter referred to as “AAAA”) and the purchase fund of the 14,667 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “OO-ri land”) in total of 26 OO-ri Nos. 26 and 5 O-si, and 14,67 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “O-ri land”). Accordingly, the instant account is only the borrowed account that the Plaintiff provided to Kim △△△△△, and it cannot be deemed that Kim △△△△△ donated the said KRW

B. Relevant statutes

▣ 구 상속세 및 증여세법(2010. 1. 1. 법률 제9924호로 개정되기 전의 것)

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

(1) Where any donated property falls under any of the following as of the date of donation due to a donation by a third party (excluding donation becoming effective due to the death of a donor; hereinafter the same shall apply), gift tax shall be levied on such donated property, as prescribed by this Act:

1. Where a person to whom property has been donated (hereinafter referred to as a " donee") is a resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is located in Korea; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph and Articles 54 and 59), all of the donated property received, as donation,

(3) The term "donation" in this Act means a gratuitous transfer (including transfer at a remarkably low price) of any tangible or intangible property, the economic value of which can be calculated, directly or indirectly, to any third person, notwithstanding the name, form, purpose, etc. of such act or transaction, or an increase in the property value of any third person by contribution.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On March 11, 2009, ParkB entered into a mutual performance consultation with NaCC, KimD (the birth of △△△△△△△) on the development and investment of OOri land, and entered into an agreement with ParkB, NaCC, and DoD on the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the said land to ParkB, NaCC, KimD, if the said land is paid the agreed amount to ParkB, and ParkBB, NaCC, KimD, or the designated person.

2) On March 11, 2009, ParkB prepared a written confirmation to the NaCC and KimD that the investment amount of KRW 100 million would substitute for the payment under the said mutual performance agreement. EE borrowed KRW 100 million from ParkB on March 13, 2009 from ParkB and decided to deduct the said money from the payment of the remainder of the OE purchase amount.

3) From the instant account, the sum of KRW 43 million was withdrawn on July 14, 2009, and the same amount was deposited in the AA KimD’s account, and KimD and NaCC were registered as a joint representative director of AAA on the same day.

4) From the instant account, the amount of KRW 15 million and KRW 30 million (total of KRW 45 million) were withdrawn on September 8, 2009, respectively, and the same amount was deposited in the account of HanF in the name of AAF. EE borrowed KRW 15 million from ParkB on September 9, 2009 and KRW 30 million from the due date ( September 18, 2009) and then drafted a receipt to offset the amount of KRW 45 million by the purchase price of OO land.

5) On September 14, 2009, the sum of KRW 45 million was withdrawn from the account of this case, and on the same day, KRW 45 million was deposited in the deposit account (Account Number: 356-002-7303-23) in the name of KimD in the name of a new bank in the name of AAA branch of OF.

6) The above details of the withdrawal from the account of this case and the details of the deposit from the account in the name of AA, headG, KoreaF are as follows.

7) AAA and ParkB agreed on September 14, 2009 to purchase OO land and above-ground buildings from EE, and on the same day, AAA made payment of KRW 100 million to EA. EE was entitled to receive cash of KRW 300 million as part of the purchase price of land in September 14, 2009. EE drafted a receipt to confirm that E received cash of KRW 300 million as part of the purchase price of land in the future of ParkBB.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 6, 9, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the funds of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority are revealed to have been deposited in a deposit account, etc. in the taxpayer’s name, the relevant deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there are special circumstances, such as that the deposit, etc. in the taxpayer’s name was made for other purpose than the donation, the burden of proof on such deposit shall be the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du

2) Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the fact that the Health Board and Kim △△△△ deposited KRW 500 million into the instant account on July 3, 2009 is as seen earlier, and thus, the said KRW 500 million is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiff by the owner, Kim △△△△△, who is the owner thereof.

3) Meanwhile, according to the above facts, most of the KRW 500 million deposited into the account in the name of AAA, headG, and HanF after withdrawal. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that Kim △△△ used the money deposited in the account in the instant case solely for the acquisition of the AAA and purchase of OOri land, and it cannot be ruled out that the Plaintiff used the said KRW 500 million as business funds for the joint business with its own business or with others, and thus, it is difficult to presume that the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff were donated to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to reverse the presumption that the Plaintiff was donated to the Plaintiff.

A) On July 14, 2009, August 19, 2009, and September 8, 2009, the name of the “△△△△△△” as the agent is stated only in the statement (Evidence A 9-2, 4, 6, and 9) prepared in the course of an agreement with AAA or gamblingB as the party, and only in the document (Evidence A 18, 19) prepared in the course of an agreement with the party, the person registered as the joint representative of AAA is only KimD and BCC, and there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that Kim△△△△△△△△ was the party involved in the investment agreement on the acquisition of AA or OOri land.

B) Since July 14, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that △△△△△△ received AAA, the sales and sales contract (Evidence A 29) concerning the OE land drafted on September 14, 2009 was made and the seal of the name of the Party AA and GaB is affixed thereto. Moreover, the receipt (Evidence A 31) and confirmation document (Evidence A 20) written by E on September 14, 2009 were written in the name of the Party A and GaB. Accordingly, it is difficult to readily conclude that △△△△△△△△△ transferred the money from the account of this case to the account of this case on July 14, 2009, only registered as the co-representative of AAA and DoCC as the co-representative director of △△△△△△△△△△△△△, a representative director of △△△△△△△, thereby opening the account of this case to the account of this case.

C) Even until the conclusion of the pleadings at the court of first instance after the lapse of six years from September 14, 2009, the sales contract on the OOri land was prepared, the owner of the OOri land is still E. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Kim △△△ purchased the OOri land in the name of AAA.

D) The Plaintiff, on February 17, 201, purchased 00 OO-dong O-dong No. 00 O-dong O-dong No. 94.2 square meters and 102 square meters on its ground, and transferred profits from transfer on August 19, 2014. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from △△ for the payment of the said real estate purchase price from △△△△ for the said real estate purchase price. The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from △△△ for the said real estate purchase price from △△△△△, and deposited KRW 10,10,000 in the agricultural account under the name of the Plaintiff on May 19, 201. From May 30, 2011 to June 1, 2011, it appears that the Plaintiff participated in the said account solely or jointly with △△△△△△△ and the Plaintiff engaged in the said investment transaction.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.