2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of gift tax amounting to KRW 4,515,750 against the Plaintiff on September 6, 2013 is revoked.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance (from the first to the second to the lower to the fifth). As such, it is accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Facts of recognition;

(a) Inheritance relationships, etc.;

"(1) 원고의 부 망 ■■■(이하 '망인'이라 한다)은 2002. 11. 1. 사망하였는데, 그 상속인으로는 배우자 ◇◇◇과 자녀 B, C, D, F(개명 후 F'), G 및 원고 등 7명이 있고, 그 상속지분은 ◇◇◇이 3/15, 나머지 상속인들이 각 2/15이다.",(2) 망인의 상속재산으로는 나주시 산포면 매성리 소재 답 5필지 합계 4,032㎡, 전 6필 지 합계 15,370㎡, 임야 1필지 907㎡와 위 답 중 일부 지상 건물이 있다.

(b) Consultation on division of inherited property;

(1) The deceased’s heir had reached an agreement on the division of inherited property before the payment of compensation for the acquisition of public land by agreement between the Jeonnam Development Corporation and the Gwangju Metropolitan City Urban Corporation for the inherited property.

(2) From October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff and B agreed on October 31, 2007 to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million, KRW 60 million to G, KRW 50 million, KRW 30 million, KRW 50 million to D, and KRW 50 million to D, respectively, on October 31, 2007, taking into account that C, on the deceased’s removal date, must have to provide the family’s preferential management and good support, etc. between the deceased and the South-Nam, as a whole, within a week from October 31, 2007.

(3) The Plaintiff and B entered into an agreement with an accurate gathering of the amount of compensation. The remaining successors knew only that the amount of compensation remains at least one billion won, and they did not know about the exact amount and did not reach an agreement, and the amount of compensation was different according to their demand and agreement group regardless of their inheritance shares.

(4) The agreement on the division of inherited property, taking into account convenience for the registration of ownership transfer, the number of inheritance taxes, etc., shall be considered in the agreement on the division of inherited property, and the date on which the agreement was entered as of November 1, 2007 while the date on which the agreement was reached was entered as of November 1, 2007, the heir did not enter the payment of the agreed money to the plaintiff et al., and thereafter the heir prepared documents necessary for the agreement on the division of inherited property to C.

(5) After the death of the deceased, until the agreement on the division of the above inherited property is reached, C, as the head of C, was the relationship between the deceased and his father and the mother before the death of the deceased, and the relationship between the deceased and the mother and the deaf in the farmland of the inherited property, which was the inherited property, did not have a fling relationship with respect to the division of the inherited property, and the agreement on division of the inherited

C. Circumstances after the agreement on division of inherited property

(1) On November 15, 2007, the ownership transfer registration was completed in installments between the place of residence and C due to the inheritance due to the division by consultation.

(2) On November 19, 2007, the time limit for the meeting of the persons holding the right to demand compensation of KRW 369,114,290, and C received compensation of KRW 625,10,770, the sum of the said money and the compensation of KRW 625,270, and KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, KRW 60,000,000 to G, KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, KRW 30,000,000 to D, KRW 50,000,000 to the persons holding the right to demand compensation, and KRW 50,00,000 to the persons holding the right to demand compensation of KRW 625,10

(3) Since August 2007, the time limit for the delay in the meeting of the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na9890) resided in the house of his wife, such as F, B, and F, and the time limit for the delay in the meeting of the parties to the meeting, and the plaintiff, F, G, and the time limit for the delay in the meeting of the parties to the meeting filed a lawsuit seeking the return of compensation equivalent to the respective inheritance shares in the Suwon District Court (2008Gahap6271) on August 21, 2008, and the judgment of dismissal was rendered, but the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na9890) rendered a ruling of dismissal, and on October 8, 2010, C paid an additional amount of KRW 150,00

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (Provided, That it is rejected after the entry of Gap evidence No. 5

(other) The purport of this Court’s testimony and the entire argument

【Evidence Evidence】 Part of Evidence No. 5

3. Determination

A. Whether the donation was made

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff received money of KRW 30 million from C, instead of taking the inherited property as the share of property C, according to the agreement on the division of inherited property between the deceased’s inheritors, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the above KRW 30 million falls under inherited property and does not constitute inherited property.

(1) If five (5) years or more after the death of the deceased, compensation for the expropriation of inherited property was made, and the division of inherited property was held, and in consideration of the circumstances that South-North C left a farming house from the inherited property and managed it in advance, and support the baby and mother, it was decided that C will own part of the compensation, instead of the inherited property, in excess of his/her share in inheritance. Thus, it constitutes a substantial distribution of inherited property.

(2) The method of division of inherited property is a kind of contract between co-inheritors to acquire some of the co-inheritors and pay money equivalent to their inherited property to the remainder of inheritors. Since the agreement on division of inherited property is possible by oral consultation, the agreement on division of inherited property in this case can be deemed to have been concluded by adding oral agreement that C shall pay money to the remainder of inheritors (Therefore, the agreement on division of inherited property in this case does not have any reason to believe that C is to pay money to the remainder of inheritors, because it is a relatively large amount of money such as the Plaintiff, etc. without compensation, payment of money from the deceased's inherited property is made with compensation from the deceased's inherited property for the convenience of registration of inheritance, etc. taking into account the necessity of issuance of acquisition certificate of acquisition certificate of inherited property, and written agreement on division of inherited property is not prepared as evidence fee for division of inherited property, even if there is no stipulation on payment of money to the plaintiff, etc. in the agreement on division of inherited property, it is not a ground to deny that the above payment of money was made by the method of inherited property).

(3) The Plaintiff et al. brought a lawsuit against C seeking the return of compensation according to the inheritance shares is an agreement with the Plaintiff et al. without accurately knowing the amount of compensation to be paid for the acceptance of inherited property, and there is a difference in the amount of each share of money. Furthermore, as C did not support the place for the settlement of real estate, the Plaintiff et al. did not have such agreement.

B. Sub-determination

The instant disposition, based on the premise that the Plaintiff received the donation of KRW 30 million from C, is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Since the disposition of this case is unlawful, the judgment of the first instance court, which different conclusions, shall be revoked, and the disposition of this case shall be revoked.