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

"A. On September 16, 1973, the plaintiff's Gomo KimB purchased and owned an OOOO 00-00, approximately 367.3 square meters and a four-story store and a house (hereinafter "the real estate of this case") on its ground, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, 00-00, and on December 31, 1987, a half of the shares out of the real estate of this case (hereinafter "one-half shares, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed in the plaintiff's name") in the name of the plaintiff as to the ownership transfer, etc., the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the plaintiff as to the one-half shares out of the real estate of this case, and the above KimB (hereinafter "the deceased") prepared the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff as the Dong KimCC, the deceased's 1/2 shares in the name of the deceased, the deceased's claim for reimbursement of 200 years and all damages for delay against the plaintiff (the deceased's claim for compensation of this case 207.4 years.

C. On March 16, 2007, the deceased filed a lawsuit against KimCC, etc. on the claim for ownership transfer registration, etc. and filed a request for cancellation registration on the ground of the cancellation of title trust with respect to one-half of the share out of the Busan East Eastern District Court 2007Kahap3818 (hereinafter “the deceased’s death”). On November 20, 2008, the deceased was sentenced to dismissal on the ground that the title trust was null and void. The deceased appealed as Seoul High Court 2009Na6549 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court 209Na6549), and on February 2, 1987, the deceased entrusted the title trust to KimCC with respect to one-half of the real estate in this case, but the judgment was revoked on March 30, 1995, which became null and void on the ground that the title transfer registration was made under the above title trust agreement under 201/10 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

D. On September 7, 2010, the Defendant deemed that the Deceased trusted the instant shares to the Plaintiff, and imposed upon the Plaintiff the disposition of KRW 1,802,379,240 on September 7, 2010, adding to the taxable amount of inheritance tax the total amount of KRW 2,402,379, and KRW 240,000 on the deceased’s claims, the total amount of KRW 2,402,379, and KRW 240 on the deceased’s claims (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

E. On December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on the instant disposition, but was dismissed on April 28, 201.

[Ground for Recognition: No dispute exists, evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1, 2, 4, and Eul evidence No. 3

3 - Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition in this case is light; and

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The registration of ownership transfer in the name of KimCC as to one half of the instant real estate held in title by the deceased KimCC was completed on the same day as the date the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff was completed. However, unlike KimCC, the Plaintiff purchased the instant shares from the deceased, but the Defendant’s disposition based on the premise that the deceased held title trust of the instant shares was unlawful.

(b) Related statutes;

As shown in the attached Table related Acts and subordinate statutes

(c)a recognition;

1) At the time of acquisition of the instant shares, the Plaintiff registered its business or discontinued its business as follows.

2) On January 26, 1988, the Deceased shall make a provisional registration of the claim for ownership transfer with respect to the instant shares, and on February 1, 198.

20. While the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as to one half of the instant real estate was completed, the registration of the right to claim ownership transfer was revoked on April 26, 1994.

3) The lease business contract for the real estate of this case signed around December 1996 states that the deceased and the plaintiff owned 50% of the shares of the real estate of this case and the rental income are divided by the ratio of investment. The lease contract for the real estate of this case on April 1, 200l is written by the lessor as the deceased and the plaintiff.

4) The Plaintiff’s certificate of value-added tax base from January 1, 1997 to June 30, 2010, and the Plaintiff’s income certificate from June 1, 1993 to 2009, etc. include the value-added tax amount paid under the Plaintiff’s name and the Plaintiff’s income amount in relation to the lease of the instant real estate.

"5) From January 22, 2007 to August 21, 2007, before the commencement of inheritance tax investigation with respect to the Deceased, the Defendant confirmed that the Deceased remitted the sum of KRW 450,000 to the Plaintiff, and notified it to the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office by deeming it as the donation property before death. Accordingly, on September 21, 2009, the director of the Gangnam District Tax Office imposed KRW 309,059,930 on the Plaintiff. On December 9, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that the portion of the rent of the instant real estate was returned, KRW 100,000,000,000 from KRW 45,50,000,000, KRW 30,000 were returned, KRW 30,000,000,000,000,000 were decided on June 30, 201, Gap’s testimony or evidence No. 14 to 15, evidence No.71 to 14

D. Determination

The above facts are as follows. ① The transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the title of KimCC was completed on the same day. ② The reason for the transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff 1 and the ownership transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff 2 as to the above shares out of the real estate was 00,000 won, but there is no evidence to prove that the sales contract was actually concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff or that the amount of 239,04.130 won was actually received in the name of the plaintiff 9,000,000,000 won was 9,000,000 won in the above real estate under the name of the plaintiff 1 and 30,000,000 won in the above real estate. The plaintiff did not appear to have been 9,000,000 won in the above real estate transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff 2 and 9,000,000 won in the above real estate transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff 1 and 3,0,0,07,0,0,0.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

partnership.