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

가. 원고의 남편 나○○은 2006. 9. 7. 송☆☆으로부터 김포시 대꽂면 ★★리 154-1 임야 5,766㎡, 같은 리 154-10 임야 376㎡, 같은 리 154-18 임야 351㎡(이하 위 3필지 토지를 '이 사건 토지'라 한다)를 15억 7,120만 원에 매수하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 후, 2006. 9. 20. 주식회사 ●●은행(이하 '●●은행'이라 한다)으로부터 10억 원을 대출 받으면서 그 담보로 이 사건 토지에 관하여 근저당권자 ●●은행, 채권최고액 13억 원 의 근저당권을 설정하였다.

B. On November 24, 2006, Na○○ filed on November 24, 2006 the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership”) on November 23, 2006 with respect to 1/2 shares in the instant land (hereinafter “the instant land shares”).

C. On May 21, 2007, the Plaintiff reported the gift tax base to the Defendant on May 21, 2007, assessed the value of donated property as KRW 785,60,000 ( KRW 1,571,200,000, X1/2), which is the value of the instant land shares, and reported the amount calculated by subtracting the amount of KRW 1/2,500,000 (hereinafter “the instant debt”) from the amount of the debt that was loaned the instant land as collateral, as the gift tax amount.

D. On June 4, 2008, the Defendant denied the deduction of KRW 500 million on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have taken over the instant debt, and issued a correction and notification of KRW 115,050,670 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on June 13, 2008, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 20, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, 4, 12 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The proposal for termination of title trust

From around 190 to 190, the Plaintiff acquired the instant real estate in the course of running the business of the trade name, i.e., ○○, in cooperation with her husband, from her husband, Kimpo-si, from 987-1 to 987-1. However, on September 7, 2006, the title of the registration was trusted in title to Na○○ with respect to the Plaintiff’s shares (the instant land shares) owned by the Plaintiff. Since the registration of ownership transfer was following the termination of the above title trust, the instant disposition was unlawful on the premise that the Plaintiff received a donation of the instant land shares from

(2) Statement of assumption of the obligation;

Even if the Plaintiff received the gift of the instant share from Na○○○, the instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff did not take over the instant obligation, was unlawful, since it actually assumed the instant obligation.

(b) Related statutes;

It shall be as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Judgment on the first proposal

Since real estate acquired by one of the parties to a marriage in the name of the title holder is presumed to be the unique property of the title holder, the other party must prove that the other party has acquired the real property under a title trust for convenience as the actual owner of the property, and only the fact that there was a cooperation by himself in acquiring the real property or a mutual assistance in marriage life, the above presumption shall not be reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Du15177, Dec. 22, 1998). In this case, the first assertion by the plaintiff is without merit, as to whether the plaintiff actually bears the cost for the share in the land of this case, and it is difficult to recognize it solely on the basis of each of the items of evidence No. 6-1, No. 7-1, and No. 7-1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the first assertion by the plaintiff on the premise that the transfer registration of the right of lawsuit of this case was based on a title trust, not the gift of this case.

(2) Judgment on the second ground

(A) In applying Article 47(1) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (the "Act"), the gift tax amount of gift tax shall be the amount obtained by subtracting the amount taken over by the donee from the total amount of the donated property as of the date of donation under the provisions of this Act, and in applying the provisions of paragraph (3) of the same Article, with respect to onerous donation between the spouse or between lineal ascendants and descendants, even if the donee takes over the donor's obligation, the amount of the obligation shall be presumed not to have been taken over by the donee: Provided, That this shall not apply where the donee takes over the donor's obligation, and Articles 36(2) and 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that the amount of the obligation shall be objectively recognized under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as the obligation to the State and local governments and financial institutions" and Article 47(3) proviso of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the obligation to the State, local governments and financial institutions shall be a obligation to the institution concerned (Article 10(1)1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act).

In the case of onerous donation between spouse or lineal ascendants and descendants, in principle, the amount of debts shall not be deducted from the amount of donated property even in cases where the donee takes over the debts of the donor. However, in cases where the donee objectively proves the fact that the donee takes over the debts of the donor at the time of receipt of a gift, it shall be exceptionally permitted to deduct the amount of debts. In this case, in the case of onerous donation between spouse or lineal ascendants and descendants, the donee bears the burden of proving that the amount of debts falls under the amount of debts taken over by the donee, i.e., the amount of debts secured by the donated property.

Furthermore, in the case of onerous donation between a spouse or lineal ascendants and descendants, whether a donor’s obligation is subject to deduction from the value of donated property as it falls under Article 47(1) and the proviso of Article 47(3) of the Act shall be determined at the time of the relevant donation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Nu1242, May 24, 198). Meanwhile, even if a donor, a debtor, has to take over a obligation guaranteed by his/her property in the future as a gift to a donee while he/she donated the property secured in the future to the donee, the donor’s obligation cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the donee, and in such a case, the donor’s obligation cannot be deemed to have been transferred to the donee, and it shall be attested that the donee actually performed the obligation he/she acquired by his/her new withdrawal.

(B) In light of the above provisions and legal principles, according to the fact-finding on this case's health team, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, and the fact-finding on Bright Bank of this Court, it can be acknowledged that the above collateral collateral collateral debtor, including the debt in this case, cannot change the above collateral collateral debtor to the plaintiff Na○ joint debtor due to the relationship with the business facility loan, even after the transfer registration of ownership of the land in this case was completed in the future of the plaintiff, and there is no evidence to prove that the above collateral collateral debtor, including the debt in this case, was the donor Na○○, and there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff consented to the debt acquisition of this case at the time of the above donation, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a repayment of the debt in this case or the repayment of interest by the plaintiff's at the time of the above donation.

Therefore, even if there were circumstances that the Plaintiff had difficulties in taking the procedure of debt acquisition with respect to the instant obligation due to the business relationship as a business loan, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff was exempted from liability due to the Plaintiff’s donation of the instant land shares from ○○○. Thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant did not deduct the instant obligation in calculating the taxable value of gift tax on the instant land shares is lawful.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim for objection case is without merit, so it is judged the same as the order.