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

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s gift tax amounting to KRW 000,00,000 on July 24, 2009 against the Plaintiff on August 14, 2014; and

The disposition imposing gift tax of KRW 00,000,000 shall be revoked on May 30, 2012.

A. The father of the Plaintiff’s father KimA died on November 22, 2012, and the Plaintiff inherited the Defendant’s inheritance.

No. 10(No. 10) did not report inheritance tax on mountain (No. 10).

B. From March 1, 2014 to June 10, 2014, the Director of the Regional Tax Office conducted an inheritance tax investigation of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant investigation”) with respect to the Plaintiff. On July 24, 2009, the Director of the Regional Tax Office: (a) determined that “the Plaintiff withdrawn 100,000,000 won, excluding KRW 100,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant remittance”) excluding the amount returned to the KimA’s account from March 1, 2014 to the account of a stock company BB (hereinafter “B”); and (b) determined that the Plaintiff withdrawn 100,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “the instant transfer amount”); and (c) notified the Defendant of the donation 100,000,000 dong from OCCD to 00,000-E (hereinafter “the instant gift 20,500,000”).

C. On August 14, 2014, the Defendant donated to the Plaintiff on July 24, 2009 (the amount transferred) gift tax.

Imposition of KRW 000,00,000 and KRW 00,000,000 for gift tax on May 30, 2012

(B) No. 1, 2, and hereinafter referred to as "disposition of this case") was made.

D. On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an appeal seeking revocation of the instant disposition with the Tax Tribunal.

On October 14, 2015, the Tax Tribunal dismissed the above appeal (Evidence A 1).

Each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 10;

The purport of all pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

around November 2009, KimA maintained the ability to conduct normal economic activities to the extent that he/she could conduct a normal operation before he/she performed a stroke. The remittance amount of the instant case is the money invested by KimA in BB on July 24, 2009. Moreover, the withdrawal amount of the instant case is not the money used by the Plaintiff but the amount that was useful by the sulfurF that was managed at the time when the instant case was her mother. Since the Plaintiff was not given a donation from KimA, the Defendant’s disposition was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached statutes are as follows.

C. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

1) Determination as to the remittance amount of the instant case

A) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 8.

(1) The KimA was inspected on September 7, 2007 at 00 medical won 0000,000, and at the time, the medical records (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (Evidence (A)) prepared at the time showed that "GlaA had a large number of memorys of KimA since one year, and was inside the hospital for the purpose of inspecting the degree of recognition function deterioration, and that the words in a mental state prosecutor showed a relatively natural letter or a very very prone, and that they do not deviate from the same subject or horse, so long as they were repeated, they showed a quantity of diversity, such as brain scronic influor, and partial suppression at the MDA prosecutor.

It is stated that loss, severe cerebral cerebrovassis has been confirmed.

B) From February 2006 to February 2009, Kim GG leased and operated the instant Magel from KimA. On December 23, 2011, the confirmation of the fact (No. 3) of Kim GG’s preparation, “GimA” appears to be abnormal, such as Magna’s mid-distance, which was long as 2006, and so long as Magna’s memory was considerably reduced. At around 2008, at around 2008, the Magna’s symptoms of dementia was serious, and around March 2009, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff met Kim H, a model of the Plaintiff, for the re-contract of the mother rental agreement. At that time, the Plaintiff entered Mag’s dementia and No. 1000, around the end of 2008, and Magna’s Kim J. 2400, 200, 204, 204.

C) The agreement dated June 10, 2009 between the Plaintiff, BB and KK (hereinafter “K”) entered into between the Plaintiff and BB, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “B”), stating that “B shall pay KRW 50 million out of the above loans to BB until June 30, 2009, KRW 50 million, KRW 200 million, KRW 150 million, and KRW 150 million in May 5, 2009, KRW 1000,000, KRW 2 billion in total to B, 300,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 50,50,000,000 among the above loans to KRW 80,000,000 to the Plaintiff, KRW 108,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff and KRW 308,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s exercise of the principal to B, KRW 108,298.

2) Upon considering the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 7, and the following circumstances revealed by the testimony of the witness YF, KimA had already lost its economic activity ability since before 2008. Since that time, the plaintiff was managing the KimA's account. On July 24, 2009, the plaintiff could recognize that the amount of the remittance was gratuitously transferred from KimA by transferring the remittance amount from the KimA account to BB and investing it in the name of the plaintiff.

A) From November 2008 to October 2012, 201, the witness sulfurF, while living with the KimA, performed duties, such as filing an application for entrance and discharge, nursing workers, and recognition of medical care for the husband and wife of KimA. The above yellowF testified that the Defendant’s investigation process of this case on the part of the Defendant to the point of view from this court to the point of view, “GraF had almost lost recognition ability due to the symptoms of severe symptoms of symptoms and sulfurF, so it was impossible to conduct economic activities because it had almost lost recognition ability, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and Kim HH, an infant of KimA, were entirely managed the projects of KimA.”

B) In the course of the instant investigation, the Plaintiff stated that “the Plaintiff acquired 9.5% of the shares issued by BB on June 2009 and held 2011, and the amount invested by the Plaintiff was approximately KRW 0 billion, and the amount of the instant remittance was the amount invested by KimA at the Plaintiff’s recommendation, and KimA directly remitted the said remittance amount to BB (Evidence 7).” However, the Plaintiff’s investment principal stated in the agreement made between the Plaintiff and B on August 28, 2009 is KRW 000,000,000,000,000 won, and the Plaintiff did not submit an investment contract and agreement made between KimA and B on the instant return amount.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff received the instant remittance from KimA on July 24, 2009.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) Determination on the part of the withdrawn amount of this case

A) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 5, Nos. 2 and 9, as well as the purport of the whole written evidence:

① Lao on May 30, 2012 between KimA and OrCC and KimD, a lessee of the instant Modern, and “OCC,”

KimD’s acquisition of the above telecom from KimA to KRW 2.2 billion, and the lease deposit 0 out of the purchase amount

The real estate sales contract stating that the remainder of 0 billion won after deducting the amount of 0 billion won shall be paid to KimA.

Around that time, the fact that OCC and KimD remitted the settlement amount of KRW 000,000,000,000, such as the above purchase price and overdue rent, and public charges, to the KimA account.

B) On May 30, 2012, in addition to the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 7 and 9, the circumstances revealed by the plaintiff's request, i.e., the YF, which had been in charge of managing and tax affairs, etc. of the franchise of this case upon the defendant's request, and testimony in this court, withdrawn the amount of KRW 00,000 from the KimA's account to the plaintiff's order (0,000,000) and the check (0,000,000) and the check (0,000,000,000, which were withdrawn in cash, were delivered to the plaintiff. 20,000,000, which was known to the effect that the plaintiff used it for his children's study, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 17320, Feb. 1, 2010>

C) Therefore, since the Plaintiff received the instant withdrawal from KimA, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Since all of the plaintiff's claims are without merit, each of them is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

(1) The former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (Amended by Act No. 11609, Jan. 1, 2013)

Article 2 (Gift Tax Taxables)

(1) Gift tax shall be levied, as prescribed by this Act, on any of the following donated property as of the date of donation on account of donation by a third party (excluding donation becoming effective due to the death of a donor; hereinafter the same shall apply):

1. Where a person to whom property has been donated (hereinafter referred to as a " donee") is a resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is located in Korea; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph and Articles 54 and 59), all the property donated to the resident;

2. Where a donee is a non-resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is not located in Korea; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article and Articles 4 (2) and 6 (2) and (3)): All property donated by a non-resident in Korea.

(3) The term "donation" in this Act means a gratuitous transfer (including transfer of tangible or intangible property at a remarkably low price) of any tangible or intangible property, the economic value of which can be calculated, in a direct or indirect manner, regardless of the name, form, purpose, etc. of such act or transaction, or an increase in the value of another person's property by contribution.

Article 31 (Scope of Donated Property)

(1) Gift property under Article 2 shall include property belonging to the donee, all articles having economic value convertible into money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.