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

Cheong-gu Office

On February 7, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the imposition of gift tax of KRW 000,00, which the Plaintiff on February 7, 2014, is null and void.

Preliminaryly, it is confirmed that the part exceeding KRW 000 out of the gift tax of KRW 000 imposed on the Plaintiff on February 7, 2014 is null and void.

A. Acquisition of the instant land

On September 9, 2008, the Plaintiff Dong Jae-in, was sold from the OOO-dong 975-2 large 530.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to the OOO-type, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 2010. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer from the OA on September 12, 2012 for the instant land on the grounds of sale on the same date.

B. On-site investigation by the defendant

From October 30, 2013 to November 15, 2013, the Defendant conducted an on-site investigation of capital gains tax on the transfer of the instant land by the Mediation Committee. As a result of the on-site investigation, the Defendant determined that: (a) the Plaintiff received the instant land under the name of Mediation Committee with the funds of his father, father BB, and mother of thisCC, and transferred the instant land to Mediation Committee in the name of the Plaintiff, the actual owner.

C. The Defendant’s disposition imposing gift tax on the acquisition fund of the instant case

1) The Defendant: (a) determined that the Plaintiff received 00 won (hereinafter “the instant acquisition fund”) out of KRW 000,000, the purchase price of the instant land from ChoB and LeeCC, whose parent was the following table; (b) accordingly, notified the prior notice of taxation on November 20, 2013. The Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff on February 7, 2014 pursuant to Article 45(1) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 11130, Dec. 31, 201; hereinafter “former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act”); and (c) the Plaintiff received a notice of tax payment on the instant disposition on February 10, 2014.

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 15, 2014 without undergoing a request for examination or adjudgment under the Framework Act on National Taxes.

Facts without any dispute arising in recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3-2, 3-4, Eul evidence 1-1 through 7, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, and Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The primary claim

Since the Plaintiff, a parent, supported ChoB and thisCC, and received income from engaging in agriculture under the parent’s name, the acquisition amount of this case is substantially owned by the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the instant disposition imposing gift tax on the acquisition fund of this case is in violation of the substance over form principle, and its defect is serious and obvious, and thus, is null and void.

2) Preliminary Claim

① Since the Plaintiff’s parent’s land is deaf-out or operated at the Plaintiff’s mother’s cafeteria, the part corresponding to the ratio of the amount equivalent to the wages for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife’s daily living in rural communities is difficult to distinguish from all the property of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s wife. Of the acquisition funds of this case, at least the amount corresponding to the ratio of the amount equivalent to the wages for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s daily living in rural communities should be deemed as the ownership of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff wife. ② In calculating the gift tax base, where the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were given a donation from a lineal ascendant, the amount of the gift tax should be deducted from the taxable amount of gift tax pursuant to Articles 47(1), 53(1)2, and 55(1)3 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the Defendant issued the instant disposition without deducting the amount of more than half of the acquisition funds of this case from the taxable amount of gift tax, the portion calculated by deducting the amount of the acquisition funds of this case from the above amount is the actual tax base calculated by deducting KRW 20000 won.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Judgment as to the main claim

A) In an administrative litigation claiming the invalidation of an administrative disposition as a matter of course and seeking the confirmation of such invalidity, the Plaintiff is liable to assert and prove the reason why the administrative disposition is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Nu6030, Mar. 10, 1992). A tax disposition imposed on a person who does not have any legal relation or factual relation subject to taxation should be deemed to have a significant and obvious defect. However, in a case where there are objective circumstances that make it possible to believe that a certain legal relation or factual relation which is not subject to taxation is subject to taxation and that it is subject to taxation, if it is possible to accurately investigate the factual relation, whether it is subject to taxation or not, it cannot be deemed to have been apparent even if the defect is serious, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the illegal taxation disposition that misleads the fact subject to taxation is null and void as a matter of course (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 200Da2498

B) Upon examining the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 6-4, Eul evidence Nos. 6-2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 5-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-1 to 5, the plaintiff acquired the land of this case in title trust to Dong Jae-A, i.e., the plaintiff's disposal of the land of this case, based on the payment date and the large amount of the land purchase price, and the details of the financial transaction of fatherCC can be verified in detail (as to the third part payment of the land of this case, the plaintiff's disposal of the land of this case's total amount of KRW 00 and KRW 00,000 were borrowed respectively under the plaintiff's name, and the principal and interest of KRW 00 were not confirmed from the plaintiff's bank account No. 100, Sep. 21, 2009, the plaintiff's disposal of the land of this case's total amount of 00 won and KRW 400,000,00.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2) Determination on the conjunctive claim

A) As seen earlier, regarding the portion of the acquisition fund of this case owned by the Plaintiff and wife’s actual ownership, and the portion of the Plaintiff and wife’s contribution to the formation of the acquisition fund of this case, only the fact-finding should be examined, and even if there was a defect in the portion exceeding KRW 000 among the instant disposition, the defect cannot be deemed as serious and clear.

B) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the disposition of this case was erroneous in the calculation of the gift tax amount of the gift tax amount, but considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the following items: (a) evidence Nos. 3-1 through 7 (each decision on gift tax determination), the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant calculated the amount of gift tax calculated by deducting the amount of gift tax calculated by deducting the amount of OOO won respectively from the amount of gift tax of the ChoB and thisCC pursuant to Article 53(1)2 of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act; and (b) no other evidence exists to deem that there was gross or apparent error in calculating

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.