Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

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

A. A. Around September 2004, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the real estate acquired by the Plaintiff’s husband ○○○○ and the capital source of the shares as indicated below.

Owners

Date of acquisition

Property acquired;

Acquisition value (unit of cost):

Insufficient sources (units): Won

○ ○

(1) The 5th of January 198

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

142,000,000

(2) December 16, 1998

(w)○○ Shares 32,453 Shares

324,530,000

(3) 201.4. 24

○ ○○ ○○ ○○

○○-○ and one parcel outside of ○

Factory site: 652.43 square meters

263,000,000

113,000,000

(4) November 6, 2001

(1)○ shares 79,538 shares

795,380,000

258,000,000

(5) November 15, 2001

(ak)○ Bank shares65,000 shares;

198,000,000

198,000,000

Total (1)

.

.

1,722,910,000

569,000,000

(m)○ shares 8,11 shares;

81,110,000

(7) November 6, 2001

(m)○ shares 19,881 shares;

198,810,000

153,000,000

(8) The Jun. 20, 2001

(m)the shares of ○ Bank;

30,000 Shares

52,000,000

52,000,000

(9) 9.17

(u)shares 76,000 shares of ○ Bank;

140,000,000

140,000,000

(10) Does 202.11

(1)20,000 shares of ○ Bank

97,000,000

97,000,000

(11) The case shall be on January 14, 200

(1)20,000 shares of ○ Bank

98,000,000

98,000,000

(12) January 28, 2002

(1)23,00 shares of ○ Bank

102,000,000

102,000,000

Total (2)

.

.

768,920,00

642,000,000

Total sum (1) + (2)

2,491,830,000

1,211,00,000

B. On January 3, 2005, the Defendant presumed that the Plaintiff and ○○○○ did not disclose the source of the above real estate and shares acquisition fund, and that KRW 642,00,000,000 were donated respectively to others, respectively, and imposed and collected gift tax of KRW 185,640,000 on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2005 and KRW 154,980,000 on the Plaintiff, respectively, on the gift tax of KRW 185,640,00. (The imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff is referred to as the “instant disposition”).

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1, 6, Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is legal because it is in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the plaintiff was given the above 642,00,000 won to her husband ○○○○○, so the plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case, which was conducted without making a spouse deduction, is unlawful, even though the gift tax was determined as the tax base after deducting 500,000,000 won from the original tax base

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From 1963 to 1993, ○○○, etc. had been on duty in (main) ○○, etc., and (main) around 1994, in which automobile parts manufacturing business, etc. were operated as a representative director, ○○ was employed as a total of 308,197,000 won from (main) 199 to 2001 as earned income. The Plaintiff, as a home owner, did not have any particular occupation. The amount of income reported from 1997 to 2001 is interest and dividend income amounting to 45,00,000 won.

(2) The Defendant recognized the source of the acquisition fund of KRW 150,000,000 as the acquisition fund of KRW 150,000,000,000, which ○○○○○-1, and 263,000 as the source of the acquisition fund, and ③ ○○○-2,00,000 as the source of the acquisition fund of KRW 263,00 on April 24, 2001, deposited at ○○-2,000 on its own account (0-0,000) and withdrawn on April 16, 200, ○○-0,000 on the remainder of KRW 113,00,00 on the account of ○○○-bank (00-00,000) that was submitted by ○○-○ (00-00,000) on the ground that the withdrawal of the fund did not have been confirmed on November 6, 201.

Of the sources, ○○○○○ received from December 31, 1999 to December 31, 2001, 237,000,000 won as earned income and interest income and 230,000 won as loans from ○○○○○ Branch on October 24, 2001, and deposited 300,000,000 won as funds for acquiring KRW 258,000,000 on the grounds that the remaining 250,000,00 won cannot be known as the source of cash deposited in the above account, and 50,000 won was not known as 198,00,000 won, 00 won was withdrawn from ○○○○○ Branch on the grounds that ○○○○○ Branch on the ground that 00,000 won was not known as the source of cash deposited in the above account.

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant recognized the source of the acquisition fund as to the acquisition 6, and recognized the acquisition fund of KRW 45,00,000 as the acquisition fund of KRW 198,810,000 among the stock acquisition fund of KRW 198,810,000, the remainder of KRW 153,000 as the interest and dividend income, and considered the remainder of KRW 8,90,000 as the investment account, and considered the entirety of KRW 489,000 as the total amount of the stock acquisition fund of KRW 489,000.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of imposition of gift tax of 154,980,000 on January 3, 2005 against himself, alleging that he had sufficient capability to acquire the real estate and stocks of this case by regarding the real estate of this case and the company work experience, income and property status during the 20 to 30 years prior to the date of acquisition, such as receiving wage and salary income, company merit pay, etc. while serving at the (ju) ○○○○, etc., and from around 1994 to the date of establishment of the (ju) ○○○, etc., as the representative director, while serving at the (ju) ○○○○, etc.

(Evidence basis for recognition)

Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

(D) Determination

(1) In a case where a person, who has a particular occupation or a person without a financial capacity, fails to prove that he would be able to obtain a return on the source of funds to acquire the pertinent property, if he/she has a financial capacity to give a donation to his/her lineal ascendant or spouse, such presumption shall be presumed to have received a donation from the person with a financial capacity. However, if it is proved that the person who is presumed to have given a donation of funds for acquisition has no sufficient financial capacity

(2) In light of the above-mentioned facts, even if ○○○○○○○-10,000 won was donated to ○○○○-10,000 won, it is presumed that ○○○○-10 won was donated to ○○○○○○-100 won, since there was no specific occupation or financial history at the time of acquiring ○○○○○○○-1’s shares, and thus, it is presumed that ○○○-10 won was donated to ○○○○○-100 won, which was recognized as ○○○○○00 won as ○○-100 won, since it appears that it was difficult to form ○○○○-1,211,000 won as ○○○-10 won as ○○○-100 won as ○○-100 won as ○○-100 won as ○○-100 won as ○○-100 won as ○○-100 won as 300 won as ○-1.

It is not confirmed that the money withdrawn from 000-0000) was deposited into the Plaintiff’s above account and withdrawn from the above stock acquisition fund. The Plaintiff acquired ○○ Bank’s shares on five occasions from June 20, 2001 to January 28, 2002, but the date and amount of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the shares do not coincide with the time and amount of the withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s funds from the Plaintiff’s above account, and it is also not confirmed whether the money deposited from ○○○○’s above account was deposited into the Plaintiff’s above account and withdrawn from the stock acquisition fund. In light of the above, the above 642,00,000,000 won is presumed to have been donated to ○○ rather than ○○○. Thus, the instant disposition of taxation is legitimate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.