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

The disposition shall be revoked.

A. On June 12, 1981, the Plaintiff reported the marriage with thisCC, and was married on November 2, 2015.

B. On July 5, 2013, thisCC deposited the amount of KRW 0,000,000 in the bank account under the Plaintiff’s name (hereinafter “instant dispute amount”). On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 00,000,000 to the account in the name of EE farming association (hereinafter “EE farming association”) out of the key amount, and KRW 00,000,000,000 on June 11, 2014.

C. On April 1, 2016, the Defendant conducted a survey on the source of funds for the said transaction and determined and notified the Plaintiff of KRW 000,000 as gift tax on the donated portion on July 5, 2013 (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

D. On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on November 29, 2016 on the instant disposition. The Tax Tribunal dismissed the appeal on April 12, 2017.

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The key amount is that the plaintiff received the consolation money and the property division under the premise of the divorce, which does not exceed the reasonableness as a property division, and it cannot be viewed as a means to avoid inheritance tax or gift tax.

Nevertheless, the instant disposition that deemed the issue amount was donated to the Plaintiff was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the amount at issue is a donation to the Plaintiff by thisCC, and thus, the instant disposition is lawful, in view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the items of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 16, 222 (including paper numbers) and evidence Nos. 2, 4, and

① The Plaintiff, as the content of the agreement on consolation money and division of property prepared on May 25, 2010 on the premise of the divorce with thisCC, agreed to pay KRW 0 billion for each of the proceeds sold by approximately 27,250 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) out of 47-10 and about 10 parcels, respectively, on June 10, 201 (where thisCC fails to pay KRW 0 billion by October 201), the court letter (the agreement to preferentially pay KRW 00 billion) dated November 2, 2011 (where KRW 00 billion is not paid by May 30, 201, the court letter prepared on July 24, 2012) (the agreement to preferentially pay KRW 00 billion for each of the instant lands) 】 (the agreement to pay KRW 300 billion for each of the instant lands by no later than 300 billion for each of the instant lands) and to pay KRW 300 billion for each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff.

② However, each of the above statements is accompanied by the certificate of the personal seal impression of CC as of the date around that time, but it is difficult to conclude that it was prepared under the agreement with the Plaintiff. In addition, it is difficult to conclude that the agreement between the Plaintiff and CC was made on June 8, 2014 (Evidence No. 16-5) that the Plaintiff’s contribution to 30% of the Plaintiff’s contribution to the net property 0 billion won is a division of property, and there is a statement that the Plaintiff shall pay 1.6 billion won as consolation money, and that if the CC possesses cash, it is required to pay 1.6 billion won as consolation money. However, there is no statement about the issue amount already paid. However, there is no evidence suggesting that the net property assessment of CC is accurate and that the Plaintiff’s contribution or the calculation of consolation money is appropriate at the time of the preparation of the above documents (the Plaintiff’s active property 10 million won from the total property 1,000,000 won.)

③ The Plaintiff appears to have transferred KRW 0 billion to the instant partnership corporation based on the investment agreement. The instant partnership corporation, on June 10, 2014, delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note amounting to KRW 0 billion at the face value of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. However, the specific investment content, etc. with the instant partnership corporation, etc. was determined by thisCC, which was made in direct negotiations with the instant partnership corporation on June 5, 2014, 】 “written agreement on the promotion of the development of the instant partnership 】 】 】 】 This is not a party to the instant partnership, and thisCC was registered as a mortgagee to secure the above 0 billion claim on June 10, 2014 (the mortgage was transferred to the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of a final claim transfer on August 4, 2014).

④ On the other hand, the tax authorities, including the head of FF Tax Office, imposed capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the disposal of real estate on December 23, 2013 on thisCC. On December 10, 2013, the tax authorities imposed capital gains tax of KRW 00,000,000 for the transfer income tax of KRW 200,000 for the year 209, and imposed capital gains tax of KRW 0,000 for the disposal of other six real estate on April 1, 2016.

As above, the key amount cannot be deemed to have been paid as a division of property or consolation money due to divorce, and it appears that thisCC did not have any legal relationship to deposit the key amount in the Plaintiff’s account. ThisCC, despite being aware that it should pay the transfer income tax in the future, deposited the court deposit related to the transfer of each of the instant land into the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff (priority amount) on July 5, 2013. Since the tax authorities seized the claim holding a right to collateral security on the real estate in the name of the instant association corporation on August 7, 2014 due to the disposition on default on default on August 4, 2014, it is reasonable to view that the collateral security was not already transferred from thisCC on August 4, 2014, and it is reasonable to view that the purpose of this disposition on default is to pay the transfer income tax to the Plaintiff, respectively, prepared on August 16, 2012.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.