2. On January 6, 2014, the part of the imposition of the inheritance tax (including the additional tax) X that Defendant BB director made against the Plaintiff by the head of the tax office on January 6, 2014, which exceeds thex source shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, 3/5 of the portion arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Aa tax office shall be borne by the plaintiff, the remainder by the defendant Aa tax office, and 9/10 of the portion arising between the plaintiff and the defendant B tax office shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder by the defendant B tax office.

A. The plaintiff, CCC, BB, DD, and EE (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") are children of the net FF (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). On August 5, 2008, the deceased was deceased by co-inheritors, but did not report inheritance tax.

B. From March 21, 2010 to May 12, 2010, Defendant BB director conducted an inheritance tax investigation, and determined and notified the Plaintiff, etc. of the total sum of xx members of the inheritance tax.

C. Since August 19, 2013 through September 27, 2013, according to the National Tax Service’s audit data, the head of Defendant BB Tax Office again conducted an inheritance tax investigation, and confirmed that the Plaintiff, etc. failed to file a return on donated property, etc. on January 6, 2014. On January 6, 2014, on the Plaintiff, the head of the tax office notified Defendant BAAAAAAAAAA of the assessment data on gift tax on the Plaintiff’s prior gift tax (including additional tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) that the Plaintiff corrected and notified the inheritance taxx, CCC, and the inheritance taxx, and the gift taxx, including the inheritance taxx, and the inheritance taxx, to the Plaintiff. On January 1, 2014, the head of the tax office notified the Defendant AAAAAAA of the assessment data on gift tax on the Plaintiff’s prior gift property (hereinafter “each disposition on gift tax”). The head of the tax office issued a notice of correction (hereinafter the same shall apply).

D. On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the grounds that it is dissatisfied with the initial imposition of each gift tax and each of the instant inheritance tax dispositions. On February 10, 2015, the Tax Tribunal rendered a reinvestigation on whether cash, real estate, etc. subject to taxation fall under the Plaintiff’s prior gift property by re-auditing whether it constitutes the Plaintiff’s property subject to taxation based on the financial transaction details presented by the Plaintiff, specifications of the deceased, etc., and as a result, issued a re-audit order (hereinafter “instant re-audit decision”) to the effect that the assessment standard and tax amount are corrected according to the results of re-audit. The detailed property details ordered

No.

relevant assets of the re-audit decision

1

OO-O-O-O-2 O-O-O-O-O-O-O-dong O-O-dong O-O-dong 'O-dong 'O-O-dong '(hereinafter referred to as "1 donated property')

2

OOOOO's donation of KRW 327 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "dd and d and d') from the O-O's 327 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the d and d') with the charge of debt collection KRW 100 million (hereinafter referred to as "the 2 donated property").

3

OO-O 280 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "third donated property") of O-dong O-O 280 square meters

4

OOO-O, which was owned by the deceased, sold out of KRW 3,684,48,00 to ccc industrial development, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "cccc industrial development") 3,684,483,00 and received for cash of KRW 1 billion after returning to the deceased (hereinafter referred to as "4 donated property").

5

EE Inheritance Tax Amounting to KRW 93,219,770

6

5,630,000 won paid out of the deceased’s funds in connection with the injury incident between the Plaintiff and Dong Dong Dong Dong BB

7

8

Cash 280,000,000 won paid in April 30, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "five donated property").

E. After re-audit according to the instant re-audit decision, the Defendants maintained each of the instant disposition imposing gift tax on May 8, 2015. Each of the instant disposition imposing gift tax is maintained as it is, and each of the initial disposition imposing gift tax on May 8, 2015 attached Table 1 issued a notice to the Plaintiff to either increase or decrease or maintain the same as indicated in the “Disposition on May 8, 2015” as stated in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “final disposition imposing each gift tax indicated in attached Table 1”).

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the imposition of gift tax and inheritance tax in this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Common illegality in the increased and corrected portion (attached Table 1 Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11) on May 8, 2015 among the disposition imposing each gift tax of this case (Chapter 1)

Each disposition of gift tax in this case, which was revised on May 8, 2015, was issued more unfavorable to the Plaintiff than the original disposition of gift tax, which is the subject of a request for a trial, and thus, is unlawful in violation of the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration under Article 79(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 9911, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply).

2) The illegality of the initial gift tax and inheritance tax disposition on donated property(Chapter 2)

According to the result of a reinvestigation by the tax authority according to the re-investigation decision of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the donor of the first donation property is not the deceased but the plaintiff's mother, and ultimately, the original disposition of gift tax and inheritance tax based on the premise that the plaintiff received the donation of the first donation property from the deceased is illegal, even though it is not a family member.

(iii) illegality of the initial gift tax and inheritance tax disposition on 2 donated property (section 3)

On April 10, 2003, the Deceased donated d land to the Plaintiff on condition that the Plaintiff redeems KRW 100 million of the Deceased’s loan, which was secured by d land on April 10, 2003, and thereafter, the Plaintiff repaid the said loan at its own expense. Even if the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have repaid the said loan directly, the Plaintiff repaid the Plaintiff’s other loan obligations equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the Plaintiff ought to be deemed to have been transferred at a cost. Therefore, the imposition of the first gift tax and inheritance tax premised on the premise that the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million of the loan to be borne by the Plaintiff

(iv) illegality of the initial gift tax and inheritance tax disposition on 3 donated property (Chapter 4)

The Plaintiff purchased the third donation property from the Cc industry development around April 2003 in the amount of KRW 80 million and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the original gift tax and inheritance tax imposition under the premise that the Plaintiff received the third donation property from the Deceased is unlawful.

5) The illegality of the instant gift tax and the inheritance tax disposition on the 4 donated property (Chapter 5)

The Deceased sold e land to c industry development and entrusted KRW 1 billion to the Plaintiff. On April 8, 2004, the Plaintiff returned KRW 500 million to the account of 00 bank account of the Deceased. Of the remaining KRW 500 million, the Plaintiff disbursed KRW 396,07,941 on behalf of the Deceased from March 2004 to February 2008, and the remainder KRW 100 million was returned to the Deceased. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was subject to the gift tax and inheritance tax imposition under the premise that the Plaintiff received donation from the Deceased, and thus, the Plaintiff was unlawful.

[tin 1] As a result of a reinvestigation, the Defendant: (a) excluded KRW 151,010,410,000, out of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000 won, from the donated property, and accordingly, corrected the amount of KRW 348,989,59

6) The illegality of the initial gift tax and the imposition of inheritance tax on donated property(Chapter 6)

A) Around April 2003, the Deceased divided KRW 1.4 billion, part of the purchase price of e-owned land, into equal amounts to KRW 280 million for the Plaintiff, the heir, etc. Of these, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife collected KRW 275 million for six occasions from February 28, 2003 to March 25, 2006, and the Plaintiff reported and paid gift tax for each gift tax at the time of each inheritance. Accordingly, the imposition of gift tax and inheritance tax on the premise that the Plaintiff received gift of KRW 50 million from the Deceased was unlawful.

B) In addition, even though the Tax Tribunal ordered the head of the tax office to re-examine whether the donated property 5 is donated property by conducting a specific financial investigation, etc. in the instant re-investigation decision, the head of the tax office maintained each taxation disposition according to the first instance court decision on the claim for legal reserve of inheritance without conducting any financial investigation. The original disposition of gift tax and inheritance tax is unlawful in violation of Article 80 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form 2 is as shown in the relevant statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, BB, and DD with Daegu District Court Decision 2009Kahap9168, Daegu District Court. On August 9, 2011, the first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim (the claim for recovery of inheritance) and accepted part of the conjunctive claim (the claim for recovery of inheritance). The Plaintiff admitted the Plaintiff’s primary claim to CCC with KRW 141,362,506 as well as its incidental claim with KRW 141,362,50 as of August 18, 2009 to August 9, 201, with KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and KRW 30 million per annum as of August 18, 201 to the date of full payment. The first instance court found the Plaintiff’s primary claim for recovery of inheritance and legal reserve of inheritance and KRW 300,000,000 per annum.

2) The CCC and the Plaintiff appealed with the Daegu High Court 201NaOOO on the judgment on the legal reserve of inheritance of this case. While the appellate court is proceeding, the following mediation was concluded between the parties (hereinafter “instant mediation”).

Matters to be mediated

1. The Plaintiff shall pay 200 million won to CCC by December 31, 2012 (including the principal and interest of the gold OO deposit in 201 Daegu District Court Decision 201, Daegu District Court), and if so, the Plaintiff shall pay the unpaid amount by adding the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 1, 2013 to the date of full payment (Provided, That the above deposit is deemed to have been repaid by the Plaintiff to CCC) to the date of full payment.

2. CCC shall, at the same time, withdraw each application for provisional attachment against real estate of Daegu District Court 2010 Chicago heading 2010 Chicago heading, and revoke its execution, with the payment of the amount set forth in paragraph 1 from the Plaintiff.

3. CCC waives the remainder of its claims.

4. The total costs and expenses for conciliation shall be borne by each person.

3) After the re-audit decision of this case, the specific reasons for the correction of each portion of the gift tax (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of increase or decrease”) that was corrected on May 8, 2015 by the head of the defendanta tax office (hereinafter referred to as “each disposition of increase or decrease”) are as follows (hereinafter referred to as “nets” means the sequences listed in

No.

Increased amount (cost)

Grounds for Correction

1

X.x

According to the sales contract of December 5, 2013, which is attached to the report of capital gains tax on donated property on January 5, 2014, the purchaser is confirmed to be the Plaintiff’s mother JJ and the purchase price of KRW 124 million. Thus, the purchaser’s amount of gift should be corrected as the actual transaction price.

2

X.x

Increase due to the delivery of a re-donation under Article 47(2) of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9916, Jan. 1, 2010; hereinafter referred to as the "Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act").

3

X.x

Increase arising from the delivery of a re-donation under Article 47(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

5

X.x

D. Since a debt of KRW 100 million with respect to D land in the name of the deceased is confirmed to be a debt with false burden which the plaintiff actually used and profited, the above loan of KRW 100 million shall also be added to additional donated property.

6

X.x

According to the sales contract attached to the report of capital gains tax on donated property No. 3 on January 2014, 2014, it is confirmed that the actual purchase price of the above real estate is not KRW 80 million but KRW 180 million, and thus, the difference of KRW 100 million is added to the donation price.

11

X.x

Increase arising from the delivery of a re-donation under Article 47(2) of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 12, 13, and Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

1) Determination as to the first proposal

A) Article 79(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes provides that “The Council of Tax Judges shall not make a decision unfavorable to the claimant who made the request for a judgment in making a decision on the tax judgment.” In practice, a re-examination decision which is conducted in the form of a decision on the request for a judgment constitutes a modified decision with the intent of the disposition authority to bring the result of re-examination of the matters pointed out in the decision of the disposition authority and take the subsequent disposition as part of the decision on the request for a judgment, etc., and it takes effect as a result of supplementation of the subsequent disposition of the disposition by the disposition authority. Therefore, if the subsequent disposition in accordance with the purport of the re-investigation decision is more unfavorable to the claimant than the initial disposition made in which the request for a judgment was made, it violates the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous change under Article 79(2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes, and thus, it is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Du39382, Sept. 28, 2016).

B) The facts acknowledged earlier in light of the aforementioned legal principles, including the following circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the entire descriptions of evidence Nos. 9, 15, and 20 and the purport of oral argument, i.e., (e., re-audit of whether each cash and real estate recognized as donated property in the initial imposition disposition in light of all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is an actual pre-donation property, or not re-audit of the value of each donated property is not required. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants issued a disposition of increase or decrease as an exercise of unique right based on the contents revealed in the grounds for the re-audit. (ii) The Defendants already secured all the taxation data that served as the basis for each disposition of increase or decrease at the time of the instant re-audit, and there is no evidence to deem that each disposition of increase or decrease was issued based on the investigation conducted with the substance of a new investigation. (iii) Article 26(6) of the former National Tax Service Regulation (Rules No. 1805, Jan. 1, 2010) provides that the Plaintiff shall notify each of the changed disposition within 30 days.

[tin2] However, the imposition of each gift tax reduced or exempted in accordance with the re-audit decision of this case as shown in the attached Table 1 was also reflected, and finally notified that the amount of xx (=xx number -x number) was reduced or exempted.

2) Determination as to the second proposal

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and Eul evidence No. 16 and all the arguments, KK and the plaintiff, the former owner of the 1 donated property, prepared a sales contract to purchase the 1 donated property in the amount of KRW 60 million on July 16, 2001, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff on July 19, 201 for the 1 donated property has been completed.

However, the following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier, Eul evidence No. 15 and evidence No. 29, and the purport of the entire arguments. ① In the judgment on the legal reserve of inheritance of this case, although the judgment on the legal reserve of inheritance of this case became final and conclusive due to the completion of conciliation at the appellate court, it is almost the same in the judgment on the legal reserve of inheritance of this case and the legal reserve of inheritance of this case which ordered the plaintiff to return to the plaintiff at the conciliation of this case). The plaintiff submitted a statement to the purport of recognizing the receipt of gift of No. 1 in the course of the deliberation on the legal reserve of inheritance of this case (see evidence No. 29, No. 15, Dec. 5, 2013; ② The plaintiff sold the property donated No. 1 on Jan. 21, 2014; thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the sale contract and the sale contract of the property of this case were insufficient, and thus, the plaintiff's ownership was not consistent with the plaintiff's claim.

[tin3] As of December 31, 2012, the adjusted amount of KRW 200 million stipulated in the instant conciliation, the amount to be returned by the Plaintiff according to the instant legal reserve judgment is 13,981,332 won (=141,362,506 won) from August 18, 2009 to August 9, 201 (i.e., 141,362,50 won) x 0.05 x 72/365, and (ii) x less than KRW 39,504,02 won (i.e., 141,362,506 won) from August 10, 201 to December 31, 2012 (i.e., 141, 362, 506 won x 201, 205, 384,5884).

3) Determination as to the third proposal

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On February 26, 2003, the deceased obtained two loans from 00 business units of 00 banks (hereinafter referred to as "first loan" and "second loan") as follows, and completed the establishment registration of a collateral with the debtor's and the maximum debt amount of KRW 125 million on each secured real estate. The interest on the first loan was paid from the account of 00 bank accounts of the deceased each month (Account Number O-O-O-OO-3).

Classification

First Loan

Second Loan

The Borrower

Deceased

Deceased

Amount of loan;

100,000,000 won

100,000,000 won

Loan Account Number

O-O-O-OO-3

O-O-O-OO-8

Security Real Estate

dd Land and its ground buildings

OOOOOOO located O-O

Real estate (site and building)

Owners of secured real estate

Site Owner: Deceased

Building Owner: Plaintiff

Site and Building Owner: Deceased

(2) The Deceased and the Plaintiff repaid all loans Nos. 1 and 2 from August 2003 to February 2004 as follows. Accordingly, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on each secured real estate was cancelled on February 11, 2004.

Classification

First Loan

Second Loan

Date of Repayment

August 25, 2003

October 8, 2003

August 25, 2003

February 6, 2004

Amount of redemption

80,000,000 won

20,000,000 won

50,000,000 won

50,000,000 won

Withdrawal of Repayment Funds

Deposit Account

O-O-O-O-8

(Depositer: Deceased)

O-O-O-O-4

(Deposit Holder: plaintiff)

(3) On April 10, 2003, the gift agreement entered into by the deceased to the Plaintiff on April 10, 2003, stating that “d land shall be borne by the donee (the plaintiff) for the debt amount of KRW 1.2.5 million registered under the receipt of No. 7589 on February 13, 2003. On the same day, the deceased also donated O-O land and buildings to GG as the plaintiff's children, while considering that the O-O land and buildings were not imported by GG as the military personnel at the time, the deceased did not give the second loan as the charge for the loan.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap's evidence 2, 6, 7, 19 through 22, Eul's evidence 29, and the financial transaction information reply results for 00 business units of 00 banks in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

B) Determination

(1) Determination as to whether the Plaintiff repaid the deceased’s first loan debt 4)

[Y] On May 8, 2015, the Defendant revised gift tax by adding 100 million won to the original donated property on May 8, 2015 on the premise that the KRW 100 million of the first loan is actually the Plaintiff’s obligation. However, as seen earlier, the above increased or decreased disposition is unlawful against the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change. Therefore, it should not be specifically determined whether the actual borrower of the first loan is the borrower.

As seen earlier, the borrower of the first loan is the deceased, and all interest and principal of the first loan have been repaid from the deceased’s account (Account Number O-O-3). The deceased and the plaintiff requested to withdraw the first loan from the Plaintiff’s account, and even though the plaintiff requested to repay the second loan from the deceased’s account, the employee in charge appears to have withdrawn the second loan from the deceased’s account, not from the Plaintiff’s account due to mistake, in light of the fact that the results of the financial transaction request of the 00 business proprietor of the 00-20-200 company, the employee in charge of the first loan is merely the abstract side of the person in charge. In light of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the first loan is the funds of the deceased, and the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the repayment fund is the Plaintiff’s funds, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

(2) Determination as to whether a transfer for consideration constitutes a transfer for consideration

The reason why a donee deducts a beneficiary from the value of gift for onerous donation is that, in economic terms, the donee takes over a debt from a donor and pays money equivalent to the debt thereof to a donor. However, since the donor and the donee take over a false debt from a donor in most close-friendly relationship, Article 47 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act requires strict requirements and proof for the obligation to be deducted from the value of donated property in most cases of onerous donation. However, even if the donee proves that the donee takes over a true debt from the donor even if it does not meet such requirements, if it is proved that the donee takes over a true debt from the donor, the part equivalent to the amount of the donated property is not the donation but the gift tax may not be imposed on this part.

In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the facts acknowledged earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s repayment of the second loan equivalent to the same amount as the first loan, which is economically different from the repayment of the first loan, ② the Plaintiff’s O-O land and building was fully donated by the O-O land and building, and eventually, the second loan as security for the above land and building still remains in the deceased’s debt, ③ there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired the first loan obligation for the deceased’s acquisition for the purpose of tax avoidance, and there is no other evidence to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the above debt for the purpose of tax avoidance. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff received the second loan of the deceased’s debt corresponding to the amount of the debt as the real intent, and that the Plaintiff received the second loan of the deceased’s debt for the purpose of tax avoidance.

(3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion

In this regard, the defendant asserted that since the funds that the plaintiff repaid the second loan are funds of the deceased, the second loan property should be deemed as having been donated to the plaintiff, as alleged by the defendant, it is not sufficient to recognize that the second loan was repaid from the plaintiff's 00 bank account in the name of the plaintiff and his family members, the part of the down payment of the down payment of the e land was deposited into the plaintiff's 00 bank account (Account NumberO-O-OOO-4), the part of the remainder of the e land was distributed to the plaintiff and his family members, or that the interest of the 1 loan was paid from the deceased's account, it is insufficient to recognize that the repayment of the 2 loan withdrawn from the 00 bank account in the name of the plaintiff as the funds of

(4) Sub-determination

Therefore, the original gift tax Xx and the inheritance tax imposition disposition under the premise that the Plaintiff had received a gift by repaying KRW 100 million of the first loan to be borne by himself with the deceased’s funds should be revoked illegally. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this point is with merit.

4) Determination as to Section 4

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of evidence Nos. 8 and 9, a sales contract was prepared between the Plaintiff and CC industrial development, the former owner of the 3 donated property, and the Plaintiff to purchase the 3 donated property at KRW 80 million on April 18, 2003, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on the 3 donated property on the same day.

However, the following facts can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Eul evidence Nos. 20, 22, 25, and 29: ① in the judgment of legal reserve of inheritance of this case, the deceased was aware that he donated the third-party donated the third-party donated property before the death; ② in the process of the examination, the plaintiff submitted a statement that recognizes the third-party donated property (see evidence No. 29, 20, 21). ② The plaintiff sold the third-party donated property on December 10, 2013 and submitted the report of the transfer income tax on February 1, 2014, the sales contract of the third donated property on February 2, 200 stated that the purchase price of the third donated property was KRW 180,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and ③ the plaintiff’s ownership and third-party donated property was transferred under the name of the deceased and third-party.

5) Determination as to Chapter 5

A) Facts of recognition

(1) On April 4, 2003, the Deceased sold e-owned land to Cc industrial development in KRW 3,684,483,00, and received KRW 550 million from Cc industrial development on February 18, 2003, and KRW 3,134,483,000 from April 4, 2003. The Plaintiff kept KRW 1 billion out of the above purchase price, and returned KRW 500,000 to the deceased’s account number (O-O-O-O-O-1) on April 8, 2004.

(2) In the instant legal reserve judgment, the court claimed that the Plaintiff used the remaining KRW 500 million for the Deceased, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and determined that the above KRW 500 million was a donation from the Deceased.

(3) The Defendants conducted a reinvestigation on the 4 donated property in accordance with the re-investigation decision of this case, and cannot be deemed to have used most of 500 million won for the deceased. Even if the expenses paid to the Plaintiff, such as part of the family expenses, the government, and the driver, etc. were recognized, the amount of KRW 280 million in the deposit balance at the time the Plaintiff’s mother was dead and KRW 800 million in the purchase price of e-e-owned land, shall be deemed to have been disbursed from the money separate from the above KRW 50 million in light of the fact that there was about KRW 80 million in the deposit balance at the time of the Plaintiff’s mother’s death. However, since the Plaintiff actually resided with the deceased and supported the deceased, it is true that the Plaintiff actually supported the deceased, such as the government, nursing, driver, medical expenses, travel expenses, and household expenses, and thus, it is reasonable to exclude KRW 151,010,000 in total from the amount of donated property in advance.

(4) Meanwhile, according to the disbursement statement of the deceased submitted by the plaintiff (No. 10 No. 10, Mar. 25, 2004 through Feb. 5, 2008), the name and the signature of the deceased are stated on the date of expenditure, such as the outline, amount, and rain of the money paid by the plaintiff. On the bottom of each disbursement statement, the name and the signature of the deceased are stated on 10 occasions in total, and the total amount of expenditure is approximately KRW 396 million.

(5) Of the written statements submitted by the Plaintiff in the course of a hearing on the claim for legal reserve of inheritance, the part concerning donated property No. 4 is as follows (see No. 29, No. 34, 35).

(C) If the mother was removed from his father’s thickness, 250 million won was included in the father’s passbook when he was removed from his father’s house, and e e e e e e e e e e e e has received KRW 3.688,450,000,000,000. Among them, 1.4 billion father’s book was divided 280,000,000 won per 5 South son according to his instructions, and 1.4 billion won was divided into 28,000,000 won per each, in the course of paying and selling various taxes, such as capital gains tax and aggregate land tax, expenses for intellectual corporation, certified judicial scrivener, tax accountants, etc., vehicle purchase cost, family unit and driver’s monthly wage, father’s amount of KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, and more than 1,000.

Facts without any dispute, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7-4, Eul evidence 29, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B) Determination

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as mentioned above, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff voluntarily returned KRW 560 million to the Deceased out of KRW 560 million and KRW 500 million from the purchase price of part of e-e land; (ii) it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff confirmed that the payment stated in the above statement was made on behalf of the Deceased, and signed it. (iii) In light of the specific usage stated in the above statement, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s payment was solely for the Deceased. In addition, considering the fact that the Defendants actually supported the Plaintiff, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s payment was made on behalf of the Deceased, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s imposition of gift tax was made on KRW 150 million from the initial gift tax after deducting KRW 150 million from the gift tax amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the remaining portion of the gift tax was made on KRW 100,1500,000.

6) Determination as to the proposal 6

A) As to the assertion that double taxation is unlawful

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence 1-13 and Eul evidence 6, the deceased donated cash of KRW 275 million to the plaintiff and his wife HH six times between February 28, 2003 and March 25, 2006. Of them, the part of KRW 245 million is confirmed at the time of the second inheritance investigation, and thus, the gift tax is imposed.

However, in light of the above facts and the purport of the argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff submitted a written statement stating that “1.4 billion won out of the sale price of e land was divided by five hundred and twenty eight hundred million won in accordance with the instructions of the Deceased,” and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive KRW 275 billion in total, and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive KRW 300 million in total from KRW 40 billion in total, and that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive KRW 5 billion in total from KRW 300 million in total from KRW 200,000,000,000 and KRW 300,000,000,000,000 won in total from KRW 20,000,000,000,000 won in total from KRW 308,000 in total,00,000,000 won in total.

B) As to the assertion that Article 80 of the former Framework Act on National Taxes was violated

In light of the fact that the decision of the Tax Tribunal to re-examine the matters pointed out in the decision concerned and order the Defendant to make a follow-up disposition in accordance with the results, and that it does not prohibit the original disposition from being maintained when it is judged lawful and reasonable even after re-examination. As seen earlier, even if the judgment of the legal reserve of inheritance became final and conclusive, it can be sufficiently recognized the validity of the fact-finding, and that the Tax Tribunal issued an order to re-examine whether the donated property 5 falls under the donated property in advance based on the Plaintiff’s reported details of the gift tax, financial data, etc., and that it did not issue an order to conduct an additional financial investigation, it is difficult to view the content of re-audit by the head of the Tax Tribunal as formal as long as the contents of re-audit by the head of the Tax Tribunal violate the binding force of

Therefore, the imposition of the first gift tax and the inheritance tax on the donated property is legitimate, so this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

(vii)the calculation of a reasonable amount of tax;

For the same reasons as seen earlier, each of the disposition imposing gift tax of this case is unlawful, and each of the disposition imposing gift tax and the disposition imposing gift tax on the second donated property among the disposition imposing gift tax of this case is deemed unlawful. Therefore, when calculating a legitimate tax amount, it is as shown in the attached Table 3.

Therefore, from among the imposition of the gift taxxxxxx, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift taxxxxx, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift taxxx, and the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax, among the imposition of the gift tax of this case, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax of this case, among the imposition of the gift tax of the gift tax of this case, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax of the gift tax of this case, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift taxxxx, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax of the gift taxx, the portion exceeding thex source among the imposition of the gift tax of the gift tax, and the portion made by the head of defendant B, among the imposition of the gift tax of the gift tax of this case, and the portion exceeding thex source.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each claim against the Defendants against the Plaintiff is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

Each claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.