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

The imposition of additional taxes of KRW 24,30,00, KRW 23,792,130, and KRW 23,792,130, and KRW 7,68,000, and imposition of additional taxes of KRW 4,100, KRW 17,543,600, and KRW 6,303, and imposition of additional taxes of KRW 6,303,410, and imposition of KRW 2,60,00, KRW 6,441,00, and imposition of additional taxes of KRW 2,02,470, KRW 470, KRW 1,347,00, KRW 90, KRW 90, KRW 200, KRW 1,349, KRW 200, KRW 291, KRW 305, KRW 301, KRW 5, KRW 3005, KRW 305, KRW 15,005, KRW 305, and KRW 531.

B. On the other hand, on March 12, 2013, the deceased died, between www and ee (hereinafter referred to as "heirs"), the heir of the deceased, left from www-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, 000, and 1 parcel No. 0000 (hereinafter referred to as "the apartment of this case") owned by the plaintiff, and on the condition that the plaintiff should return his car owned by the deceased and his healthcare membership rights, the plaintiff was paid KRW 00,000,000 from ee, and KRW 200,000,000 from 0,000,0000,000,000 from e, to 0,000,0000,000,000 won received from the plaintiff's heir's each of the above rights (the sum, 00,000 won, hereinafter referred to as "the agreed money received from the plaintiff's heir's 0,000,0000 won.

D. Accordingly, on April 15, 2014, the Defendant decided and notified the Plaintiff of the total amount of KRW 00,000,000 (including additional taxes) of the gift tax as stated in the following [Attachment 2] (hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”).

E. The Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on July 3, 2014. However, upon dismissal on December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 2, 2015. [The grounds for recognition: (a) the fact that there is no dispute; (b) the entries in Gap’s subparagraphs 1 through 5, 8, and Eul’s evidence No. 1; and (c) the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The Plaintiff of each of the instant real estate was a de facto husband and wife with the deceased, and maintained a de facto marital relationship from October 0, 200 to October 00 (0 years). The deceased unilaterally abandoned the Plaintiff during the above period, and caused de facto de facto marriage by reason of the deceased’s fault. The deceased paid the Plaintiff the acquisition fund of each of the instant real estate under the pretext of division of property and consolation money, so it is unlawful to impose gift tax.

2) The instant agreement amount paid to the Plaintiff by the heir of the instant agreement amount is unlawful to impose gift tax on the deceased’s deceased’s deceased’s deceased heir, as part of the rental deposit deposit amount to be returned to the Plaintiff by the deceased (at first, KRW 00 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 was reduced by agreement between the Plaintiff and the heir on March 12, 2013). Since it was merely a repayment of the said amount,

3) Plaintiff’s domestic labor cost

Even if there is no other illegality in the disposition of this case, it is too small that the defendant calculated the plaintiff's domestic labor cost of KRW 50,000 to KRW 70,000 per day in the disposition of this case.

(b) Related statutes;

Attached Form is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing tax on each real estate of this case, the burden of proving the facts of taxation must be borne by the imposing authority. However, if the facts alleged in light of the empirical rule are revealed in the specific litigation process, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue cannot be eligible for the application of the empirical rule, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent taxation disposition was illegal disposition that failed to meet the taxation requirements (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Du6604, Feb. 22, 2007). In a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of the donor recognized as a donor by the tax authority was withdrawn and deposited in the name of the taxpayer as a deposit account, such deposit is presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, if there are special circumstances such as the withdrawal of such deposit and the deposit in the name of the taxpayer for purposes other than donation, it is necessary to prove the existence of "the presumption of de facto marital relationship between the deceased and the real estate in this case," and thus, there is no special circumstance to exclude the Plaintiff from the above presumption of real estate from property.

However, de facto marriage is a subjective intention between the parties, and there is an substance of marital life among the deceased in terms of social order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da52943, Apr. 13, 2001). The Plaintiff appears to have a de facto marital relationship between the deceased and his/her parents, and it is reasonable to view that there was a de facto marital relationship between the deceased’s spouse and his/her heir as evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da52943, Apr. 13, 200). In addition, the Plaintiff’s written notice of performance of 00 Airbrates (0 around October 2004; 8 times from around August 2006; 2009; 3) the deceased’s family life-related relationship between the deceased and his/her heir’s deceased’s deceased’s deceased’s deceased’s life and the deceased’s heir’s non-de facto marital relationship as evidence.

Rather, the plaintiff can verify the fact that he moved his resident registration to another place than the deceased's residence (as stated in the evidence No. 2, the list No. 3 below). If so, it is reasonable to view that the deceased resided in the apartment of this case while he was registered as a resident under the above No. 4,000 apartment of this case, and the plaintiff was only a intermittent living relationship with the deceased, rather than a de facto marital relationship with the deceased during the period alleged by the plaintiff.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the acquisition fund of each real estate of this case was paid as property division or consolation money for the deceased’s unilateral failure of a de facto marital relationship between the deceased and the deceased. However, even if it is assumed that a de facto marital relationship existed between the deceased and the plaintiff, there is no evidence to support that such de facto marital relationship has broken down, and that the acquisition fund of each real estate of this case was paid as property division or consolation money. Rather, there is a time difference between five years and six months between the acquisition of each real estate of this case. There is no difference between five years and six months, but it does not fit that property division and consolation money are ordinarily made at ordinary time. ② Even in the fact confirmation document prepared by Ttt, there was a de facto marital relationship between the deceased and the deceased, and it is difficult to view that the acquisition fund of each real estate of this case was paid as consolation money or consolation money for the failure of a de facto marital relationship.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

2) On February 25, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the agreement amount of this case was part of the lease deposit amount of KRW 000,000,000,000, which was paid to the deceased while leasing the apartment house of this case owned by the deceased, under the name of www, who is his father, from the deceased, on February 25, 201, but there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff leased the apartment house of this case from the deceased, or that the Plaintiff paid KRW 00,000 to the deceased under the name of the lease guarantee money, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the deceased were in a de facto marital relationship.

1) The real estate is the real estate in the name of e, which is the son of the deceased. In such a situation, it is paid KRW 00 million to the deceased as a deposit for lease of a separate house to be residing in the deceased, and the fact that the deceased has a resident registration separately from the deceased does not coincide with the allegation in a de facto marital relationship (the plaintiff appears to have lived with the deceased on the apartment of this case, and it is not common sense that the plaintiff living together with the deceased and leases it from the deceased on the apartment of this case.) Rather, in light of the agreement that the plaintiff and the inheritor prepared in relation to the inherited property of the deceased, it seems that the lease deposit claimed by the plaintiff was not paid (refer to the agreement on No. 2, No. 8, and No. 9).

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

3) Plaintiff’s domestic labor cost

As seen earlier, the Defendant calculated the value of donated property by deducting the Plaintiff’s household labor cost from KRW 00,00,000,000 as the Plaintiff’s household labor cost. The Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff provided household labor according to the monthly average wage payment of the Statistics Korea from 2003 to 2012, deducted the above amount by applying the daily wage of KRW 50,00 to KRW 70,000 per day during the period of 2012. Accordingly, the Plaintiff calculated the Plaintiff’s household labor price at the rate of KRW 50,00 to KRW 50,00 per day, but it is too short that the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s household labor price at the rate of KRW 10,00 to KRW 15,00 per day, and that it should be deducted from the value of donated property by applying the daily wage of KRW 100,00 per day.

However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it seems that there is no clear evidence that the Plaintiff provided household work to the Defendant from 2003 to 2012. ② Even if the Plaintiff provided household work, there is no evidence that it was a contractual relationship involving the deceased’s monetary payment obligation. ③ Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff was liable to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s household work, this is attributed to the inheritance obligation and the heir’s monetary payment obligation is generated (On the other hand, the above agreement does not contain any mention about the remuneration for household work), and it does not constitute a kind of deduction from the value of donated property of each real estate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part cannot be accepted without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.