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

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this case is as stated in the column of reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance or addition of the following judgments. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Parts in height:

∘ 제7쪽 12번째 줄의 뒤에 아래 기재를 추가함.

Article 78 (Additional Tax, etc.)

(1) When, with respect to inherited property or property received as donation, a report that falls short of the tax base to be reported within the reporting deadline under Article 67 or 68 (hereafter in this paragraph, referred to as "insufficient report"), the head of a tax office, etc. shall add an amount equivalent to 10/100 (20/100 in cases where a report is not made within the reporting deadline or where a report is not made within the processing deadline, or a report is made short of the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree, due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as title trust, etc., under Article 27 or 57) of an amount calculated by multiplying the ratio of the amount that falls short of the tax base to the amount determined pursuant to Article 76 (referring to the amount excluding the amount falling under any of

1. An amount reported and under-reported due to a difference in appraised values as prescribed by the Presidential Decree;

2. An amount of property reported which is not determined as inherited or donated property due to such reasons as litigation on ownership, etc.

3. Amount of insufficient report due to the error in applying the deductions under Articles 18 through 24 and 53 (1).

(2) In case where the tax amount to be paid under Article 70 is not paid within the report deadline, or is paid under the tax amount to be paid under the tax base determined under Article 76, the head of tax office, etc. shall add to the calculated tax amount the amount calculated by multiplying the tax amount not paid or underpaid (including the tax amount not permitted for annual installments or payment in kind, in case where an application for annual installments or payment in kind is made under the provisions of Article 71 or 73) by the rate as determined

Article 80 (Additional Tax, etc.)

(1) The amount of insufficient report under the provisions of the main sentence of Article 78 (1) of the Act other than each subparagraph shall include the amount that falls short of the tax base determined under Article 76 of the Act by failing to report within the time limit

(3) The term “Difference in the appraised value as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 78 (1) 1 of the Act means the value which falls short of the tax base according to the determination of the tax base, with respect to the inherited or donated property reported within the inherited or donated property, one association member’s relocation right, one’s relocation right, and one’s relocation right, one’s relocation right, and one’s relocation right,

(4) The term "ratio prescribed by Presidential Decree" in Article 78 (2) of the Act means 3/10,000 per day.

3. Additional determination

The Plaintiffs asserts that even if the Defendant’s additional determination and notification of the gift tax of this case is lawful, it is unlawful to impose the tax for unfaithful return and for unfaithful payment.

First of all, even though the gift tax imposed on the Plaintiff Park ○-○ was reported within the due date and by the due date, but due to the difference in the evaluation, it cannot be deemed that the subject of imposition of additional tax for unfaithful payment is excluded from the subject of imposition. Furthermore, the above circumstance alone does not constitute a justifiable ground for paying below the amount of tax (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du13546, Oct. 10, 200). The above argument by Plaintiff ○-○ is groundless.

Next, with respect to the failure to file a return and an additional tax imposed on Plaintiff Lee ○○, the health care provider, and the tax law provide that, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, the taxpayer’s intentional or gross negligence shall not be considered as administrative sanctions imposed under the law if the taxpayer violates a return and tax obligation under the law without justifiable grounds (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du3714, Oct. 26, 2006). In this case, if the transaction value of similar property is confirmed, the calculation of the value of donated property based on the standard market price, which is a supplementary assessment method, is difficult to constitute “justifiable reason” as above. Thus, the above assertion by Plaintiff Lee○○ is without merit (Article 78(1)1 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Article 78(1) of the same Act provides that no additional tax may be imposed on the “amount reported due to a difference in the assessment methods as determined by the Presidential Decree” (Article 78(1)1 of the same Act cannot be applied).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.