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

A. On March 14, 2007, the Plaintiffs purchased 453,539,451 shares of 7,452 square meters and 7,452 square meters of land and 91.74/7,93.92 square meters of 0,000 ○○○○, ○○-si, ○○○○-si and 610-2 square meters of land, respectively (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. The director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office confirmed the amount of KRW 396,168,441 out of the acquisition amount of KRW 453,539,451 as the funds of each of the plaintiffs. However, on May 25, 2007, the Seoul Regional Tax Office notified the defendant of the amount of KRW 38,737,50 (hereinafter referred to as the "amount" in this case) and the amount of KRW 24,100,00 deposited in the account of the KimCC out of the remainder of the building on June 19, 2007 after deducting KRW 12,132,490 and using KRW 6,66,510 (hereinafter referred to as the "amount of this case" in this case as the registration expenses, and the father of this case's aggregate of the amounts of KRW 38,737,500 (hereinafter referred to as the "amount of this case") by deeming the amount of the plaintiffs' contributions to the defendant.

C. On October 14, 2009, the Defendant imposed the gift tax of KRW 1,249,026 on Plaintiff KimB on May 25, 2007, KRW 2,709,168 of the gift tax on June 19, 2007, KRW 3,393,270 of the gift tax on May 25, 2007, and KRW 2,754,070 of the gift tax on June 19, 2007, respectively (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 52, 53, 54 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

(1) The purchase price of the instant real estate is within the scope of the amount received by the Plaintiffs as a father, KimCC prior to the instant case, and KimCC found money more than the instant amount from the account in the name of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the instant amount is not a donation to the Plaintiffs since KimCC lent to the Plaintiffs.

(2) Even if the amount of this case was donated, KimCC held KRW 12,132,490, which is owned by the Plaintiffs, and thus, in calculating the amount of donation, it shall be deducted from the amount of this case ①, and it shall not be deducted from the amount of this case ②.

(b) Related statutes;

The entries in the attached Table shall be as follows.

(c) Fact finding;

(1) On June 3, 1995, the Plaintiffs purchased the credit of the Korea Long-Term Credit Bank from KimCC, a father, and purchased each of KRW 15 million. On June 27, 2000, the Plaintiffs were returned KRW 28,176,000, respectively.

(2) On February 28, 2007, the Plaintiff’s father KimCC received each of KRW 26,438,138 from the Plaintiffs to its own bank account, and paid KRW 14,305,718, respectively, the acquisition tax and registration tax of the instant real estate, and stored the remainder KRW 12,132,490 for each of the Plaintiffs.

(3) On May 25, 2007, KimCC paid 38,737,50 won for the down payment of the instant building, which the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay, in cash. On June 19, 2007, 2007, KRW 24,100,000 for the remainder payment of the instant building and KRW 6,666,00 for registration expenses each, to be paid by the Plaintiffs, were withdrawn from one’s own bank passbook where the Plaintiffs were partly in custody.

(4) Meanwhile, from March 28, 2003 to July 6, 2006, the Plaintiffs deposited KRW 50,000 per one year or six months with the new mutual savings bank. The interest was received from the account of KimCC or directly withdrawn from KimCC. On August 3, 2007, Plaintiff KimA re-deposited the principal of the said deposit on February 15, 2008, and then deposited KRW 51,161,269 with the principal and interest of KRW 52,56,672 on August 3, 2007, and deposited KRW 52,56,672 with the principal and interest of the said deposit again and deposited KRW 53,77,319 on February 15, 2008. The said deposit amount was fully withdrawn by KimCC.

(5) On May 14, 2009, the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office conducted an investigation of the source of the funds to acquire the real estate of this case against the plaintiffs. The KimCC stated that "the amount of this case was "not known", but later stated that "the source of the funds to be acquired is 100% dury payment." In addition, in the currency with the person in charge of the investigation of Seoul Regional Tax Office, it was stated that "it is obvious that it was using cash at that time, but it is not possible to find out whether it was a dary fund even if all passbooks were followed."

[Ground of recognition] The aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 20, 21, 21, 39, 40, 41, 56, 57, and 58, and the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

(1) Whether the instant amount was donated

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, insofar as it is proved that a person who is recognized by the tax authority as a donor voluntarily owns cash or withdraws from his/her bank account in the name of the said person to have repaid his/her obligation, this is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Therefore, it is necessary to prove the special circumstances that the subrogated repayment of such obligation was made for other purpose than gift (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Nu6006, Apr. 27, 1990; 96Nu3272, Feb. 11, 1997).

However, it is difficult to acknowledge the above special circumstances with the evidence of the plaintiffs. Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, i.e., (i) KimCC merely asserted that the source of the funds of this case was funds of the plaintiffs at the time of conducting a tax investigation with respect to the plaintiffs, but did not claim that the funds of this case were paid to the plaintiffs. (ii) Even if a transaction was between family members, it is difficult to understand that the funds of this case were paid to the plaintiffs, without any reason, and it is difficult to understand that the difference between the funds of this case and the term deposits was settled. (iii) The plaintiffs did not have any trace of calculating the difference between the funds of this case and the term deposits. (iv) In addition, the plaintiffs' assertion that the funds of this case were paid to the new bank by increasing the funds of this case from June 27, 200 to investing them in the long-term credit bank claims of Korea on June 27, 200.

(2) Whether there is any error in the calculation method of gift tax

According to the above facts, the amount of this case ① is paid in cash by KimCC, which is deemed to have been donated to the Plaintiffs in full, and it does not necessarily be deducted from the fact that KimCC had been partially kept in custody of the Plaintiffs’ money, and the amount of this case ② was withdrawn from the account that KimCC kept in custody of the Plaintiffs. Thus, the amount of this case’s donation to the Plaintiffs is not the entire withdrawn amount, but the amount deducted from the above custody amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing parties.