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

Each disposition of imposition of KRW 147,092,680, and KRW 1,269,300,980 for the gift tax of year 2004 shall be revoked.

The court's reasoning for this case is as follows: (a) 2,259,00,000 won 2,259,400,000 won in the judgment of the court of first instance (the third 10th th th th 10th th th th th th th th th th th of the judgment), 1,269,30,980 won in the judgment of the court (the third th th th th th th th th th th th th th th), 269,30,989 in the judgment of the court (the third th th th th th th th th th th), 2.(b)(3)(b)(5) in the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) 2.(2) in the judgment of the court of first th

2. Parts to be dried;

(2) As to the instant disposition 2

(A) Whether the tax investigation in 2007 constitutes a duplicate investigation

Article 81-4 (2) of the former Framework Act on National Taxes (amended by Act No. 8830 of Dec. 31, 2007) provides that "where there is clear evidence to acknowledge a suspicion of tax evasion, a tax official shall not conduct a reinvestigation on the same item of tax and the same taxable period except where it is necessary to investigate the other party to the transaction, where it is necessary to investigate the other party, or where it is erroneous in connection with two or more business years, or where it is similar and where it is prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it shall not conduct a reinvestigation on the same item of tax and the same taxable period." Thus, the taxation

However, according to the above evidence, the Seoul Regional Tax Office's tax investigation of 2004 on the tax investigation of the branchA, non-party corporation, and the house in water as a person subject to the investigation on their income tax, corporate tax, and stock transfer (the taxable period subject to the investigation from 2001 to 2003.) may be found in the tax investigation that the Plaintiff was donated by the branchA, and thus, the gift tax was imposed. However, the tax investigation conducted on February 2007 by the Plaintiff as the person subject to the investigation was investigated on the Plaintiff's financial source related to the tax items of the Plaintiff's property tax (the taxable period subject to the investigation from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2006). Thus, the investigation conducted in overlap with the previous tax investigation in relation to the person subject to the investigation and the tax items of the tax investigation

In addition, the issue of Disposition 2 of this case was 1.384 billion won, which was donated by the plaintiff to the non-party corporation in the form of a claim against the non-party corporation in order to pay the construction price to the non-party corporation. Thus, the time when the plaintiff received the donation from the plaintiff is not around January 1, 2003, but around December 31, 2004, when the plaintiff was obligated to pay the construction price to the non-party corporation, not around January 1, 2003, when the provisional payment against the non-party corporation was accounts as the plaintiff's provisional payment. Accordingly, the taxable period of KRW 2 of this case was 2004, and this was the first taxable period in the tax investigation conducted in 2004, which was not the tax investigation for the first time in 2007, and thus, it does not constitute double investigation in that it was not an investigation for the same taxable period.

(B) As to the issue 2 gold bullion

According to the above facts, although the plaintiff's claim 1.384 billion won against the non-party corporation is entered in the balance sheet as a provisional deposit in the name of the plaintiff, it is difficult to say that the plaintiff has deposited the claim 1.384 million won as a provisional deposit in the balance sheet, even in the balance sheet, the plaintiff has managed the claim 1.3 billion won retroactively as a provisional deposit claim, and the plaintiff does not have any explanation to be able to be able to be able to be able to pay for the reasons, and it is difficult to say that the plaintiff has deposited the claim 2 billion won as a provisional deposit in the light of the plaintiff's self-sufficiency at the time. Therefore, it is reasonable that the 2 billion won

(C) As to the issue of the three gold sources

According to the statement No. 6-2 and No. 3 of the Evidence No. 6-2 and No. 3, the issue issue is that the Plaintiff deposited the provisional payment in the non-party corporation. Since the Plaintiff received the provisional payment from the development of the Do, which he had been the representative director, from the development of the Do, and deposited the provisional payment in the above provisional payment, it may be deemed that the said provisional payment was clearly explained.

However, in full view of the above evidence and evidence, ① the provisional payment of the development fund of △△△ in the Special Metropolitan City was entered only in the name of the representative on the computer transfer slip, but not in the name of the plaintiff, and even before the plaintiff takes office as the representative on March 19, 2004, the provisional payment of the representative director of △△△△△ Development was deposited in the provisional payment of the non-party corporation. ② The provisional payment which the development fund of △△△△ in the name of the plaintiff was made in the name of the plaintiff from January 1, 2004 to the name of the representative of the representative, ② even though the representative director was changed to the plaintiff on March 19, 204, the provisional payment was still made in the name of △△, and even though the representative director changed to the plaintiff, the provisional payment was not made in the form of the non-party corporation account in the form of the depositee of △△△ Development Fund. ③ In fact, the provisional payment fund of △△△ Development was made in the form of the deposit.

In full view of the above points, it is difficult for the Plaintiff, other than the DoA, to actually engage in the transaction of provisional payments with the development of the Do governor, so it is difficult for the Plaintiff to fully explain the source of funds for the above provisional payments.

Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the 3rd Won also contributed to the Plaintiff by the NA.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff's appeal.