2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On December 1, 2017, the Plaintiffs, the husband and wife, were donated 1/2 shares in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment E E-dong (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the father and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

B. On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiffs assessed 1.7 billion won (the date and time of transaction: December 18, 2017) at the market price of the instant apartment, and calculated the gift tax base and tax amount. Accordingly, Plaintiff A reported and paid KRW 178,560,000 to Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B reported and paid KRW 167,40,000 as gift tax, respectively.

다. 피고는 비교대상 아파트①의 거래가액은 특수관계에 있는 모녀(母女) 사이의 거래가액으로서 부당하게 저가에 해당하여 이 사건 아파트의 시가로 볼 수 없다고 판단하고, 위 D아파트 H동 I호(이하 ‘비교대상 아파트②’라 한다)의 거래가액(거래일시: 2017. 11. 30.)인 21억 4,000만 원을 이 사건 아파트의 시가로 보아, 2018. 7. 6. 원고 A에게 증여세 74,052,000원(가산세 포함), 원고 B에게 증여세 69,938,000원(가산세 포함)을 각 결정ㆍ고지하였다

(hereinafter “instant disposition”) D.

The Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on September 6, 2018, but the Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on December 13, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 10, 11 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The attachment to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes shall be as follows;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The main point of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the apartment complex of this case is different from the comparative apartment2, the location, area, and the number of floors. Considering that the comparative apartment2 is the first floor, 2.14 billion won, which is the transaction price, is excessively high, and this is the market price of the apartment of this case as at the date of donation.