2. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of lawsuit.

A. As DD died on July 19, 2008, the deceased's property was inherited by BB, the plaintiff, and UCCC (hereinafter referred to as "heirs") on January 19, 2009, and the inheritors reported and paid KRW 000 of inheritance tax with the value of inherited property KRW 00 on January 19, 2009.B. The defendant conducts an on-site investigation of inheritance tax, and ① on December 26, 2006, the deceased gave 1/2 of shares in EE building (hereinafter referred to as "EE building") located in Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, 2000, and the plaintiff paid KRW 100 on March 26, 2007, 200 after deducting KRW 20 from 0.0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00.

D. On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff appealed and filed a request for a trial with the Tax Tribunal, and on May 9, 201, the Tax Tribunal rendered a decision to the effect that the said KRW 000,000, out of the above KRW 000, shall be deemed the leased income amount of the UCCC, and that the said tax base and tax amount shall be corrected by excluding the said KRW 000,000 from the taxable value of the inheritance tax.

(e) Around May 24, 2012, the Defendant issued a notice of reduction of KRW 000 upon the decision of the said Tax Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition of imposition on February 1, 201, which was corrected”), “The instant disposition of imposition on February 1, 201,” [the grounds for recognition], (where there is no dispute, and (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply) and (1) and (2) and (1) through (1) and (1) through (15), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) Of the Plaintiff’s gift tax of KRW 000 paid by the deceased, KRW 000,000, the deceased received and managed the lease deposit from the Plaintiff, Yongsan-gu Seoul (hereinafter “HH apartment”), and KRW 000,000, the deceased managed the proceeds from the lease of the EE building that the Plaintiff should receive, and KRW 00,00 should be excluded from the donated property.

“2) On December 23, 2002, the Deceased’s account in the name of the deceased and KimFFFFF is the leased revenue of the building to be granted by the UCC, and the heir should be excluded from inherited property. (iii) The account in the name of the deceased and KimFFFF is the account jointly used by the deceased, and thus, the heir’s location cannot be confirmed out of the amount withdrawn from the account in the name of Kim FFFF, and 000 won that cannot be confirmed by the heir should be excluded from inherited property.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Determination on the first argument

A) Claim concerning HH apartment lease deposit

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and the plaintiff leased HH apartment with the lease term of 100 won from July 25, 2003 to July 24, 2005 from the JJJ on June 25, 2003, and it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred KRW 00 to the account in the name of KimFF, operated in the name of the deceased on August 31, 2005 from the account in the name of the plaintiff to the account in the name of the deceased on August 16:32, 2005. However, according to the statements in Eul Nos. 18 and 19, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff transferred KRW 00 from the account in the name of the deceased to the account in the name of the deceased's spouse on August 31, 2005, and that the plaintiff transferred the above part of the deceased's account in the name of 00-K to the account in the name of Kim F.

B) Claim on the proceeds from the lease of EE building

According to Gap evidence 6, and 7 evidence, it is recognized that the above 00 won was remitted from 00 won to 10,000 won of the deceased's account, and 300 won was remitted from 00 won to 16, 2008 to 16, 2010, and 100 won of the lease deposit, and 300 won was remitted from 00 won to 17, 2008 to 17, 2000 won. However, considering the statements in evidence No. 6, and No. 8, the above 00 won was transferred from 00 won to 00 won of the above 00 won, and 00 won was transferred from 0,000 won to 0,000 won of the above 17,00 won was transferred to 30,000 won of the above 20,000 won was transferred to 17,000 won of the Kim FL, and 26,008,08.

2) Determination on the second argument

The plaintiff, and the plaintiff's account in the name of the plaintiff, transferred from February 29, 2008 to the account in the name of this K, 000 won, are the proceeds from the lease of the second building to be granted by this K, and the above 000 won should be excluded from the inherited property. There is no objective evidence that it is recognized as the proceeds from the lease of the above 000 won (CC) and there is no ground for this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3) Determination on the third argument

The Plaintiff asserts that the account in the name of KimF is jointly used by the deceased and KimFF, and that, among the amounts withdrawn from the account in the name of the deceased and KimFF, the heir’s 000 won should be excluded from inherited property. The following circumstances are as follows, namely, ① the account in the name of the deceased’s company bank (000) on June 11, 201, and the comprehensive financial securities account (000) in the name of the deceased were used in the name of the deceased, and ② the Seoul Western District Court (20087) on the deceased’s account in the name of KimFFF) on the deceased’s own in the name of the deceased’s account, the account in the name of the deceased’s Kim FF, the account in the name of the deceased’s Kim FF, the account in the name of the deceased’s Kim FF, and the account in the name of the deceased’s account in the name of the deceased’s 16 and 17, the account in the name of the deceased’s 2000.

3. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.