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

A. During the period from August 1, 2000 to April 22, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired real estate as follows, and repaid the loans to financial institutions.

(unit:,000 won)

Classification

Type of property

Date of acquisition or redemption

Acquisition/Redemption Price

Approved amount of vindication

Estimated amount of gift

1

○○구 ○○동253 ◎◎◎◎아파트 102-1801

August 31, 2001

178,500

27,394

(Earned income)

151,106

2

Blue-dong 193 △△ apartment 104-1702

April 2, 2002

205,000

150,000

(Loan)

5,000

3

☆★은행 대출금

August 8, 2002

150,000

150,000

4

☆☆시 ∇∇동 669

July 8, 2003

820,000

677,500

142,500

5

Bluort 64-5 △△ apartment 103-903 (Contract Deposit)

July 28, 2003

159,060

159,060

6

〃 4

August 22, 2003

159,060

159,060

7

〃 4

November 12, 2003

26,284

26,284

8

■■농협 대출금

January 8, 2004

350,000

350,000

9

○○구 ◎◇동 46-1 ◆◆리스크(잔금)

October 1, 2004

367,600

57,798

(Transfer Price)

309,802

guidance.

2,415,504

912,692

1,502,812

나. ●○지방국세청장은 2004. 10. 26.부터 2005. 7. 1.경까지 금융대부업체인 "▽▼"에 대하여 금융추적조사를 하여 그 실질적 전주로 ○●○, ●○●를 지목하고 원고를 비롯한 ○●○, ●○●의 친인척의 부동산 취득 및 대출금 상환내역에 관하여 조사한 후 원고에 대하여 그 자금출처를 소명할 것을 요구하였고, 원고의 자금 출처 소명 내역 중 위 표 기재 소명인정금액에 대하여만 객관적인 자료에 의하여 자금 출처가 소명된다고 인정되고, 나머지 금액인 ○●○, ●○●로부터 증여받은 것으로 추정하였다.

C. On October 4, 2005, the Defendant notified the head of the ○○ National Tax Office of the taxation data, and assessed gift tax on October 4, 2005 on the presumption that the Plaintiff was donated by the Plaintiff as stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each disposition of this case”).

D. The Plaintiff was dissatisfied with each of the instant dispositions and filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on January 10, 2006, but was dismissed on April 3, 2007.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 to 18, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 to 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

원고가 소유하고 있던 부동산의 매각대금과 원고의 근로소득, 남편인 ☆★으로부터 증여받은 돈으로 위 표 기재 각 부동산을 취득하고, 대출금을 상환하였으며, 오빠인 ○●○, ●○●로부터 증여받은 사실이 없다. 따라서 ○●○, ●○●로부터 위 표 기재 각 증여추정금액을 증여받은 것으로 추정한 이 사건 각 부과처분은 위법하므로 취소되어야 한다.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) The director of the regional tax office, from October 26, 2004 to May 12, 2005, conducted a tax investigation with respect to the lending company as follows, ○○, and ○○, on the ground that there is money transaction between the lending company and the ○○, and the ○○, the actual substance of the transaction is that the lending company did not have the ability to engage in a monetary credit business. The actual substance of the transaction is that ○, ○, and the actual substance of the transaction is that ○○, upon the lending company’s lending of money, engaged in a monetary credit business. The ○○, ○○, based on the notarized data at the office of the notary public, calculated interest income based on the income rate or standard rate, and then notified the head of the tax office of the tax office of the tax office of the tax office of the tax amount calculated the ○, ○, and the actual substance of the transaction.

Name of the Enterprise

(Business registration number)

Holder of the registered title;

Business Registration Date

Location

▽▼

(***************)

Han △△△

January 6, 2003

□□구 ■■동 36 ▽▽아카데미텔 901

★★캐피탈

(***************)

오▲▲

June 14, 2004

50-1 Seoul Special Metropolitan City building 1106

○○○ Capitals

(***************)

000 △▽

June 14, 2004

538 ○ building

Maclocks

(***************)

박▼▼

January 10, 2003

BUB 292-20 Bilateral building 502

△△ Enterprise Finance

(***************)

Park Jong-chul

January 3, 2003

같은 동 36 ∇∇아카데미텔 811호

◆◆캐피탈

(***************)

이◆◆

January 2, 2003

22 Madern Buildings 822

(2) On April 28, 2005, the head of △△△△△ Tax office imposed on the actual tax, ○○, the actual tax amount, and on the actual tax amount, the resident tax on global income tax and income tax for each of the years from 2001 to 2004.

(3) ○●지방국세청장은 위 세무조사결과에 따라 ○●○, ●○●에 대하여는 조세포탈의 혐의로 이 사건 대부업체의 등록명의자인 박▼▼, 이◆◆, 박◇◇, 박☆, 한△△, 오▲▲, 백∇∇에 대하여는 ○●○, ●○●가 조세포탈을 하는 데 방조하였다는 혐의로 서울중앙지방검찰청에 고발하였다.

(4) However, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, on December 29, 2005, prosecuted the title holder of the loan company of this case as a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) on the ground that the title holder of the loan company of this case was not merely assisted and abetted the tax evasion, but also evaded the comprehensive income tax while actually operating the loan company of this case. The Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office prosecuted the title holder of the loan company of this case on December 29, 2005. The actual tax amount

(5) On July 21, 2006, Seoul Central District Court convicted all the registered titleholders of the loan company of this case, and sentenced to a fine (2005 Gohap1226). The judgment became final and conclusive.

(6) ○●○, ●○●는 위 (2)항 기재 각 종합소득세 및 소득세할 주민세 부과처분에 불복하여 △△△세무서장과 서울특별시 △△△구청장을 상대로 서울행정법원에 소송을 제기하였고 서울행정법원은 2006. 11. 23. ○●○, ●○●를 이 사건 대부업체의 실제 사업자로 볼 수 없다는 이유로 ○●○, ●○●의 청구를 인용하였으며(2006구○∇∇∇∇호), △△△세무서장과 서울특별시 △△△구청장은 이에 불복하여 항소하였으나, 서울고등법원 또한 ○●○, ●○●가 이 사건 대부업체의 실제 사업자가 아니라고 보았고(2007◎◇◇호), 위 판결은 확정되었다.

(7) 원고는 2002. 2. 7. 서울 ◆◆구 ○○동 193 ☆☆아파트 104동 1702호에 대한 계약금 4,000만원(1천만원권 수표 4매)을 ○●○가 농협 □□지점에서 대출받은 10억원 중 △△기업금융의 직원 박▽▽가 2억 원을 1천만원권 수표 20장으로 교환하여 원고 명의 계좌(○○은행 176-00000-00000)로 입금한 4,000만 원에서 지급하였고, 2002. 8. 8. ○○은행에 1억 5천만 원을 ◎◎캐피털 직원 전◇◇이 발행한 수표(●○의 직원 이△△의 처가 배서함)로 지급하였다. 또한 원고는 ●○이 회수한 수표들로 ☆☆시 △△동 669 토지를 취득하는 등 위 증여추정금액 중 일부의 출처는 이 사건 대부업체이다.

(8) 이 사건 대부업체는 한 달에 한두 번 이상 5,000만 원에서 3,000만 원까지 서로 신용거래를 하였고, 이 사건 대부업체 중 ●○은 한◇◇과 함께 원고의 남편인 박◎이 공동으로 운영하였다. 피고가 발급한 박◎에 대한 소득금액증명에 의하면 박◎은 1992년부터 1996년까지 합계 422,881,659원의 소득이 있었다.

(9) 이◆◆는 2001년부터 2004년까지 여러 차례에 걸쳐 합계 74억 원의 자금을 ◎◎기업금융의 대표자인 박☆☆ 등에게 대여하고 합계 5억 8,500만 원의 이자를 지급받았으며, 이○●가 지병으로 미국에 머무르고 있을 때에는 이○●의 자금을 관리하기도 하였다.

(10) According to the Plaintiff’s certificate of income as to the Plaintiff issued by the Defendant, the Plaintiff had earned a total of KRW 50,635,00 from 1994 to 2004. Moreover, the sum of the amount of money deposited in the periodical deposit in the name of the Plaintiff from September 1, 1999 to June 2003 is approximately KRW 165,634,666.

(11) From January 2002 to November 2004, the Plaintiff’s credit card approval amount was 139,850,625 won in total, and during that period, 4 million won in monthly insurance premium was paid.

Facts without any dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 19, 20, Eul evidence 23, Eul evidence 24, Eul evidence 25-1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) As a matter of principle, the fact of donation of property, which is a requirement for the imposition of gift tax, is proven by the tax authority. Thus, even if the tax authority establishes a certain occupation and substantial refluence at the time of the acquisition of the property, and even if the person who actually had a substantial income therefrom does not offer daily funds required for the acquisition of the property, it cannot be deemed that the portion of the funds required for the acquisition of the property was donated to another person, barring any special circumstances. However, if a person without a certain occupation or income does not have any money source enough to clearly present the source of the funds required for the acquisition of the property, it is reasonable to presume that the funds acquired have been donated from the person with a real ability to obtain the said property, and if such lineal ascendant or spouse, etc. had any refluence, it should be proved by the tax authority that the donor had any refluence that there was a refluence that the donee had no certain occupation or income (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10732, Apr. 16,

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the actual substance, ○○, which the Plaintiff omitted, should be proved first by the Defendant, in order to presume that the actual substance, as seen above, has been donated from the actual substance, as seen in the above disposition. The Defendant must prove first that the actual substance, ○○, and the actual substance, which the Plaintiff had had had re-refluence

In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and her husband did not own any property, the actual business operator of the loan company of this case is ○○, the actual business operator of the loan company of this case, and since part of the Plaintiff’s real estate acquisition and repayment of loans was introduced from the loan company of this case, it is presumed that the Plaintiff received the gift presumption amount from the Plaintiff, ○○, and the actual business operator of the loan company of this case, but it was proved that ○○, the actual business operator of the loan company of this case was not ○○, and the actual business operator of the loan company of this case. One of the loan companies of this case was operated jointly with 1st day after the Plaintiff’s husband of this case, and ○, one of the loan companies of this case operated the loan company of this case with 50 million won through 30 million won through credit transaction between the loan company of this case. In light of the fact that part of the Plaintiff’s real estate acquisition and repayment funds of this case was transferred from the loan company of this case, it is difficult to presume that the Plaintiff’s actual business income of this case was ○○.

Therefore, each of the dispositions of this case, which the Plaintiff presumed to have received a donation from the actual accounts of ○○, ○, and the actual accounts, is unlawful.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.