2. The plaintiff KimB's remaining claims are dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OOO on April 1, 201 against Plaintiff KimA was revoked. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of OOOOO on June 8, 201 against Plaintiff KimB is revoked: ① the notice of joint tax payment by Plaintiff KimB, donee KimA, and OOB on March 19, 2007, and ② the donor’s notice of payment of gift tax by the donor KimB, donee KimB, Plaintiff KimA, and gift on May 23, 2007, respectively.

A. The plaintiff KimB is the leakage of the plaintiff KimB.

B. The plaintiffs' father, KimCC (hereinafter "the deceased"), died on January 12, 2002, and the plaintiff KimB succeeded to the land on 11 parcel, such as OOi 298 (hereinafter "the land in this case"), which was owned by the deceased at that time, and as the land in this case was designated as a housing site development zone and expropriatedd into DD Corporation, the plaintiff received the OOO's gift tax amount from DD Corporation on December 26, 2006. (c) The defendant conducted a gift tax investigation on the plaintiff KimCC between November 29, 2010 and January 10, 201, considering that the plaintiff KimB received the gift tax on the plaintiff Kim 2, 193 OO's donation from the plaintiff Kim 2,300,000 won on March 19, 207, 207, and received the gift tax on the plaintiff Kim 2,301,000,0000 O20.

D. The Defendant: (a) notified that Plaintiff KimA did not pay the gift tax by April 30, 201, the due date for payment; (b) notified Plaintiff KimB, the donor on June 8, 201, that Plaintiff KimB was jointly and severally liable for tax payment; (c) imposed KRW OO on the portion of gift on March 19, 2007 (i.e., gift tax £« + additional dues and increased additional OOE) and KRW OO on the portion of gift on May 23, 2007 (i.e., gift tax + KRW OOOE + additional dues and increased additional OOOE) on the gift (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”); and (e) notified Plaintiff KimA, the donor on June 1, 201, the Director of Seoul Regional Tax Office rejected the portion of the gift tax imposed on the Plaintiff and the Director of Seoul Regional Tax Office on May 21, 201.

(f) As to the imposition of gift tax on April 1, 201 by the Defendant, Plaintiff KimB requested the Tax Tribunal on September 8, 201, respectively, on the instant disposition. However, on October 23, 2012, the Tax Tribunal rejected the Defendant’s request on the imposition of gift tax on the gift of April 23, 201 (which appears to be a clerical error as of April 1, 201), on April 8, 2011 (which was made by the Defendant to Plaintiff KimA on April 23, 2011), on the ground that the request for a trial on the imposition of gift tax on the gift of April 23, 207 constitutes an illegal claim without undergoing due process. The request for a trial on the imposition of gift tax on the gift of May 23, 2007 was dismissed, and the remaining request for a trial by Plaintiff KimB and the rejection of Plaintiff KimB’s request for a trial on the gift of September 1, 2011.

2. Whether the lawsuit by the plaintiff Kim A is legitimate

As to the instant lawsuit, Plaintiff KimA sought revocation of the Defendant’s imposition disposition of the gift tax on April 1, 201, 2007, the Defendant asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful because Plaintiff KimA’s lawsuit did not go through legitimate pre-trial procedures.

Pursuant to Articles 55(1) and 56(2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes, where an objection is filed against a disposition of gift tax, an administrative litigation may be instituted only through a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes. In such cases, a request for examination or adjudgment shall be lawful, such as complying with the request period. If a request for examination or adjudgment is unlawful due to an excess of the time period, administrative litigation also becomes inappropriate. This does not change even if an administrative agency makes an substantial adjudication with regard to a request for examination or adjudgment with the lapse of the time period for request for a pre-trial procedure, it does not change even if the administrative agency received an unlawful request for examination or adjudgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Nu754, Nov. 24, 1987; 90Nu8091, Jun. 25, 1991). In addition, Article 61(1) and (2), 66(1), (6), 68, or 68 of the Framework Act on National Taxes within 90 days after receipt of the request for examination or adjudgment.

In light of the above legal principles, in light of the overall purport of the argument in the statement No. 1 and No. 2 as to the instant case, Plaintiff KimA filed an objection after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of imposition of the gift tax on the donation of March 19, 2007 through E, which is the company rent, to the head of the Seoul Regional Tax Office on July 11, 2011. Accordingly, even if the notice of imposition of the gift tax on the donation of March 19, 201 was served, Plaintiff KimA filed an objection seeking the revocation of this part. According to the above facts, Plaintiff KimA filed an objection after the lapse of 90 days from the date of receiving the notice of imposition of the gift tax on the donation of March 19, 207, the above objection shall be deemed unlawful, and therefore, it shall not be deemed that the period of request for adjudication and the judgment of the Tribunal on the gift of March 19, 207 were unlawful on the date of receiving the notice of imposition of the Plaintiff 100.

3. We examine whether the part of the Plaintiff KimB’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of additional dues and aggravated additional dues is legitimate or not of the part of the Plaintiff KimB’s lawsuit seeking revocation of the imposition of additional dues and increased additional dues.

If national taxes are not paid by the due date, additional dues or aggravated additional dues provided for in Articles 21 and 22 of the National Tax Collection Act are naturally created pursuant to the provisions of Acts without the final procedure by the tax authorities, and the amount thereof is determined. If the initial amount of tax imposed is revoked or reduced, additional dues are automatically cancelled or reduced in response thereto. Thus, the notice of additional dues or increased additional dues cannot be deemed a disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Du2013, Sept. 22, 2000).

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff KimB's lawsuit that seeks the revocation of the disposition of additional and increased additional OOOOOO on March 19, 2007 and the disposition of additional and increased additional OOOOOO on May 23, 2007 is unlawful.

4. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Plaintiff KimB’s assertion

The plaintiff KimA does not receive a donation of the OOOO from the plaintiff KimB, but made an investment on behalf of the plaintiff KimB on behalf of the plaintiff KimB as the husband of the plaintiff KimB. Thus, the disposition of this case made by the plaintiff KimB to the plaintiff KimB is unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff KimB donated the OOOOO to the plaintiff KimB.

B. Relevant statutes

(1) The former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8828 of Dec. 31, 2007)

Article 4 (Gift Tax Liability) (1) A donee shall be liable to pay gift tax under this Act.

(4) Where a donee falls under any of the following cases, the donor shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the gift tax to be paid by the donee: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases falling under the provisions of Articles 35, 37 through 41, 41-3 through 41-5, 42 and 48 (limited to cases where the contributor is not responsible for the operation of the relevant public-service corporation and prescribed by Presidential Decree):

1. Where it is difficult to secure a taxation right because the domicile or residence is unclear;

2. Where it is deemed difficult to secure a gift tax claim even after the disposition on default is made due to the lack of ability to pay the gift tax.

(6) Where the gift tax is to be paid to the donor pursuant to paragraph (4), the head of tax office shall notify the donor of the reason.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) On July 30, 2006, Plaintiff KimB prepared a statement of performance (hereinafter “instant performance statement”) as follows. Meanwhile, the instant performance statement is accompanied by the statement of obligation against Plaintiff KimB prepared by Plaintiff Kim Young-B, and the statement of obligation statement contains a detailed statement of obligation and the statement that the obligation will be repaid at the time of inheritance’s performance of equity interest.” In the case of Plaintiff Kim Young-B, 50% of its equity interest, 1/4 out of the remainder of 50% of its equity interest, and 1/4 of the remainder of its equity interest will be given to Plaintiff KimA-B, and 1/4 of the remainder of the compensation amount will be settled in cash after the remainder of the compensation amount due to Plaintiff KimA’s actual debt (written evidence) and expropriation.

(2) On August 7, 2006, Plaintiff KimA filed an application for provisional injunction against real estate disposal on the instant land owned by Plaintiff KimB based on the instant performance memorandum, and received a provisional injunction against real estate disposal from the Suwon District Court on August 16, 2006. The provisional injunction against real estate disposal was completed on the instant land.

(3) On the other hand, around December 18, 2006, Plaintiff KimA filed an application for the cancellation of the execution of the provisional disposition against real estate disposal on ten parcels of the instant land, and around that time, the provisional registration against real estate disposal was cancelled for ten parcels of the instant land.

(4) On December 26, 2006, Plaintiff KimB received compensation OOB from DD Corporation for the instant land.

(5) On March 19, 2007, Plaintiff KimB opened, on behalf of Plaintiff KimB, an account in the name of Plaintiff KimB (Account Number O-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO) at the O branch of GG investment securities, and the address and telephone number column of Plaintiff KimB was indicated in the deposit address and telephone number column in the application for opening of the account. Meanwhile, Plaintiff KimB was a bad credit holder at the time of opening the account in the name of Plaintiff KimB from the GG investment securities.

(6) On March 19, 2007, and May 23, 2007, the Plaintiff KimB remitted the total amount of OOO on the account of GG investment securities opened as above to OOO on March 19, 2007 and OOB on May 23, 2007. From the above account, it was withdrawn by the OOOO on March 20, 2007, OOOOO on April 5, 2007, and OOOO on May 23, 2007.

(7) On the other hand, on January 7, 201, the plaintiff KimB prepared a written confirmation that "The plaintiff KimB shall confirm that the above amount of OOOO was withdrawn by the OOO on March 19, 2007 and paid to the plaintiff KimA on May 23, 2007, because it was deposited by the OOO-O-O-O-O-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO which was opened in the name of the tax official on January 7, 201, the plaintiff KimB confirmed that the above amount of OOOOO was implemented in accordance with the performance note", "No dispute exists", "No dispute exists, Eul-O-O-O-O-OOOOOOO", and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments."

D. Determination

(1) In full view of the following circumstances revealed by taking account of the overall purport of the above facts and arguments, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff KimB donated the above money to the plaintiff KimA by remitting the total amount of OOO won to the GG investment securities account opened under the name of the principal in order to implement the contents of the letter of performance of this case. < Amended by Act No. 8370, Mar. 19, 2007; Act No. 8478, May 23, 2007; Act No. 854, May 23,

(A) On July 30, 2006, around the time when the instant land that the Plaintiff KimB voluntarily succeeded was expropriated in DDRHD company, the Plaintiff KimB drafted a letter of performance with the purport that on July 30, 2006, Plaintiff Kim Dong-A grants 1/8 equivalent to the portion of Plaintiff KimA out of the compensation for expropriation of the instant land. In fact, Plaintiff KimB transferred the instant land to the GG investment securities account opened in his own name, and there is no big difference between Plaintiff KimB and the amount equivalent to 1/8 of the total amount of the compensation for the land.

(B) On December 18, 2006, Plaintiff KimB issued a provisional injunction against the instant land, but the execution of the provisional injunction against ten parcels of the instant land was revoked on or around December 18, 2006, immediately before Plaintiff KimB received the land compensation.

(C) At the time when the account was opened in the name of Plaintiff KimB at the nominal branch of GG investment securities, Plaintiff KimB appears to have been unable to open an account in its name due to the fact that Plaintiff KimB was a bad credit holder. In light of the fact that Plaintiff KimB’s address and telephone number was indicated in the deposit account column and telephone number column of Plaintiff KimA, not the address and telephone number of Plaintiff KimB, the bank account book column and telephone number of Plaintiff KimB, the Plaintiff KimB appears to have opened an account in its own name to pay money under the instant performance note to Plaintiff KimB (the Plaintiff KimB was entitled to directly withdraw money transferred to the said account because Plaintiff KimB’s seal impression, personal seal impression, and resident registration certificate were possessed in order to open the account in the name of Plaintiff KimB).

(D) At the time of the tax investigation, the Plaintiff KimB prepared and submitted to the Plaintiff KimB a certificate to the effect that the OOO member transferred to the GG investment securities account opened in his name was paid according to the content of the instant performance certificate. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise except the testimony of Lee F, the husband of the Plaintiff KimB, who is the Plaintiff KimB, who is the husband of the Plaintiff KimB, who was unable to believe that the content of the above certificate was written by strong pressure or prepared by false means.

(E) The money transferred to the GG investment securities account in the name of Plaintiff KimB was entirely withdrawn immediately or for a long time. The Plaintiff KimB returned the money to the lessee as the lease deposit. The Plaintiff KimB returned the money to the lessee on March 20, 2007, and the OOB withdrawn on April 5, 2007 and the OOB withdrawn on May 23, 2007, all of which were withdrawn to make an investment in HH fund. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, other than the Plaintiff KimB’s husband, who was the husband of the Plaintiff KimB, who was unable to believe such assertion.

(f) In light of the empirical rule, the fact that Plaintiff KimB, a public educational official, invests more than KRW OOO in a private fund that is not a commodity ordinarily sold in GG investment securities through his or her husband, cannot be easily acceptable in light of the fact that Plaintiff KimB, a public educational official, invests more than KRW H fund.

(2) Therefore, under the premise that Plaintiff KimB donated OOB to Plaintiff KimB, the instant disposition taken against Plaintiff KimB is legitimate, and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned assertion on a different premise is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff KimA's lawsuit and the plaintiff KimB's lawsuit on March 19, 2007, which sought the revocation of the disposition of additional and increased additional OOOOOOOOOO on the donations made on May 23, 2007, and the disposition of additional and increased additional OOOOOOOOO for the donations made on May 23, 2007, is unlawful, and all of them are dismissed. The remaining claims by the plaintiff KimB are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.