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

Cheong-gu Office

The imposition of gift tax by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on December 5, 2011 is revoked, respectively.

"A. The deceased BB (the father) transferred OO-dong O-dong 217-19 large 90.9 square meters and buildings on its ground (hereinafter "the real estate in this case") to the OOB on September 7, 2009, which was the part of the plaintiff's father, to the 2000 OOB," and "b. The defendant, around September 8, 2011, investigated the transfer price of the real estate in this case, as a result of the investigation into the real estate in this case, OOB was deposited into the bank account of the plaintiff on November 19, 2009, and the 2000 OO-2000 won among the transfer price of the real estate in this case was used as the acquisition fund of the plaintiff, but the 2010O-1000 won and the 20100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff borrowed a sum of the KRW OO OO from September 2009 to February 2010 from around September 2009 to around August 201, but repaid the total amount of KRW OOOOO from around September 2009 to around August 201. The key issue amount in this case is part of the above borrowed money. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have donated the issue amount of this case from the deceased. Thus, the disposition of this case on the premise that the Plaintiff received the gift from the deceased was unlawful.

See Table 3

B. Relevant statutes

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

C. Facts of recognition

1) The details of the receipt of KRW 8.3 billion for the instant real estate are as follows:

See Table 3

2) Of the transfer proceeds of the instant real estate, the above OOOO which was deposited into the deceased’s account was immediately deposited in the account in the name of the Plaintiff. The details are as listed below.

See Table 700,000,000

(iii)The details of the plaintiff's explanation for the amount (1) and the items of the defendant's investigation are as follows:

See Table 700,000,000

4) The Plaintiff concluded a monetary loan contract with the Deceased for the amount at issue ①, and borrowed the amount (OOO) to use it for the acquisition fund of multi-household housing located in OO-dong 361-13, and thereafter, verified that the deceased paid the amount of capital gains tax on the real estate in this case on behalf of the OOOO-13, and the Defendant concluded that the above OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O3 was paid on behalf of the OO-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O

5) The 3rd amount was deposited into the Plaintiff’s foreign exchange bank account on September 1, 2009. The details of the Plaintiff’s vindication and the Defendant’s investigation are as follows.

See Table 5 of the Court Decision 5

6) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff stated the loan certificate as follows.

The loan certificate

OOOO

The above amount shall be borrowed from the creditor B to the debtor on September 8, 2009 by the debtor.

The repayment date of the borrowed amount shall be until September 7, 2011, and the debtor shall, at the request of the creditor, make the full repayment or installment repayment of the borrowed amount.

September 8, 2009

7) On September 8, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired a multi-household house located in OO-dong 361-13, OO-dong 361-13, and on December 8, 2009, the Plaintiff acquired OOO-dong 550-4 DD Village E-E apartment 1701, 1701 at an auction procedure.

8) On October 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer from the CCC Rental Co., Ltd. under its name, upon receipt of payment in substitutes from OO-dong Nos. 6-9 201, 202, 301, 302, 301, 302, 401, and 501.

9) Meanwhile, on September 4, 2004, the Deceased caused cerebral tension, so it was impossible for the Deceased to walk independently from the right mathy and needed to assist others in their daily lives. On September 10, 2008, the Deceased continued to live in the above sanatorium except for three outs after having been admitted to the sanatorium located in the OO-gu O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong O-dong, and died on November 28, 201. At the time of the Deceased’s death, there was no financial property of the Deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 3, 4, Eul Nos. 1 through 6, 8, 9 (including numbers, if any)

D. Determination

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of a disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited in a deposit account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, etc. for purposes other than donation, the need to prove such fact lies on the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997; 99Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensive consideration of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 7 of the foregoing case’s health team, the evidence mentioned above, and evidence No. 7, namely, ① as the deceased was used in a medical care facility for the aged as brain fluor, the plaintiff was admitted to the medical care facility for the aged, ② as a result of managing the deceased’s funds from time to time, repeated entrance and exit, and used as one’s own funds, ② around 2009, the deceased owned the instant real estate and transferred it to the deceased. It was very exceptional that there was no financial asset of the deceased at the time of the death of around 201 [the fact that the Plaintiff did not

(3) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the donation of this case and the loan of this case were not in accord with the Plaintiff’s agreement on the loan of this case, and that it was difficult to recognize that the loan of this case were in accord with the Plaintiff’s interest on the loan of this case and the loan of this case, although the deceased, who had been admitted to a specialized sanatorium for older persons, used all of the above funds for about two years after the transfer of the real estate of this case. On the other hand, the Plaintiff purchased other real estate or acquired it as payment in kind (OOO's acquisition fund for multi-household housing located in OO-dong, OO-dong, OO-dong, OO-dong, O-dong, O-dong, O-dong, and O-dong house located in O-dong, and that it was difficult to recognize that the loan of this case and the loan of this case were in accord with the Plaintiff’s interest rate on the loan of this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan of this case were not in accord with the Plaintiff’s loan of this case.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.