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

The following facts may be admitted by integrating the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2 (including household numbers), and 8, and Eul evidence 1 through 4 (including household numbers), in which there is no dispute between the parties, or in which the whole purport of the pleadings is recognized:

A. Following the death on March 27, 2008 by BB, the Plaintiff, which was one of its children, filed a return on the tax base of inheritance on September 27, 200 of the same year with the taxable value of inheritance, the amount of 00 won deducted, and the amount of 00 won voluntarily paid.

B. From October 6, 2009 to November 30 of the same year, the Defendant: (a) conducted an inheritance tax investigation with the Plaintiff; and (b) on October 7, 2003, the deceasedB decided and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000,000,000, and KRW 92,562,00,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant land”) within five years before the commencement date of the inheritance as “property donated by the decedent to a person who is not the heir”; and (c) added 000,000,000,000 won, including the value of the instant land as of the donation date, which was omitted in the taxable value of inheritance; and (d) on January 6, 2010, the Plaintiff determined and notified the inheritance tax amount to the Plaintiff.

C. Accordingly, on March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Tax Tribunal to sell the instant land for KRW 000 on August 13, 2003 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”). Since the instant land is located within the area subject to land transaction permission, it could not obtain land transaction permission, and thus, completed the registration of ownership transfer to Park G on the ground of donation, the substance of the transaction between the networkB and Park G is not a donation but a sale, and thus, the instant disposition that reported it as a donation was unlawful, and the Tax Tribunal dismissed the said request on December 24, 2010.

D. On the other hand, while the lawsuit of this case is pending, the defendant added the grounds for disposition of this case to the effect that "the contract of this case is the most conclusive as if it was made a gift not traded for the purpose of excluding or avoiding land transaction permission, and the land of this case is still included in the plaintiff's inherited property as the ownership of the net LeeB at the time of commencement of inheritance due to the death of the network LeeB."

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The substance of the transaction between the network BB and Park GG on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant transaction”) is not a donation but a sale, so it is unlawful in violation of the substance over form principle to deem the instant disposition as a donation, and furthermore, if the instant sales contract is null and void, the heir of the network B, including the Plaintiff, bears the obligation to return the purchase price of KRW 000 under the instant sales contract to ParkG, and it is unlawful in this regard the instant disposition, even though it should be deducted from the value of inherited property, is also unlawful.

B. Determination

1) First, according to the records on the substance of the instant transaction, and evidence No. 9, the Defendant does not dispute the fact that the instant transaction was confirmed on September 26, 2005 [it can be recognized that the instant judgment was affirmed as it was Oct. 8, 2005 upon conviction due to the following criminal facts, and that the instant transaction was the most likely that the instant transaction was made in collusion with LB and LG, which would not be entitled to land transaction permission, even though the instant transaction was actually a sales contract. Accordingly, the substance of the instant transaction is not a donation, but a sale, and the Defendant’s land was deemed to be a property donated to GG, which is not an inheritee’s heir, within five years prior to the date of commencing the inheritance, and thus, it is unlawful to deem that the instant disposition was made after calculating the taxable value including 00 won as of the date of donation, including the value of the instant land, as of the date of donation.

2) The following. Since the subject matter of the lawsuit for revocation of tax disposition is objective for the Plaintiff’s preliminary disposition, the tax authorities may submit new data that can support the legitimacy of the tax base or amount of tax recognized in the disposition until the closing of pleadings at fact-finding proceedings, or exchange or change the oil within the scope of maintaining the unity of the disposition, and it is not possible to determine the legality of the disposition only by the data at the time of the disposition, or to assert only the initial reason for disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 200Du6657, Sept. 24, 2002). Furthermore, it is deemed that the instant land was invalid for the Defendant’s sale contract to be included in the Plaintiff’s inherited property on the ground that the sales contract was null and void for the reason that it would have been included in the Plaintiff’s inherited property, and that it would have become invalid for the Defendant’s return of the land within the scope of the original disposition to the effect that it would have become final and conclusive upon the entry of the ownership transfer registration for the said property.

3) 마지막으로， 이 사건 매매계약의 매매대금이 000원이므로 위 금액이 상속재산에서 공제되어야 한다는 원고의 주장에 관하여 살피건대，위 수원지방법원 2005 고단2843호 부동산등기특별조치법위반 사건의 확정판결에서 인정된 이 사건 매매계약 의 매매대금이 8억 원인 사실은 위에서 인정한 바와 같고，갑 제11， 13， 14， 15， 16-2，17-2호증의 각 기재에 의하면， 망 이BB과 박GG은 위 형사사건으로 인하여 수사기 관에서 조사를 받으면서 '이 사건 토지의 매매대금이 평당 000원 정도로 계산된 000원이었다'고 일치하여 진술한 사실， 박GG이 이 사건 매매계약의 매매대금 명목으로 진QQ에게 2003. 8. 중순경 000원을， 같은 해 9. 하순경 000원을 각 온라인으로 송금해주고， 이에 진QQ이 같은 명목으로 망 이BB에게 자기앞수표로 000원을 지급 한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있는바， 이러한 사실에 비추어 보면， 갑 제3 내지 7호증(가지 번호 있는 것은 각 가지번호 포함)의 각 기재는 이를 그대로 믿을 수 없거나 그것만으로는 이 사건 매매계약의 매매대금이 000원이 아니라 000원이었다고 인정하기에 부족하고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the disposition of this case is legitimate to include the land of this case in the plaintiff's inherited property on the ground that the sales contract of this case is null and void due to the addition or change of the defendant's grounds for disposition, and to calculate the inheritance tax amount including the obligation to deduct the purchase price of 000 won from the inherited property

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.