2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Claim: The Defendant’s each disposition of imposition of KRW 18,662,40 on May 1, 2008 against Plaintiff KimB, 2004, KRW 155,200 on gift tax in 2004, KRW 14,204, KRW 300 on gift tax in 2005, and KRW 49,207,150 on gift tax in 2006 shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, and all of the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the above revocation are dismissed (the defendant claims that the cancellation of the judgment of the court of first instance and the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in the purport of appeal, but the judgment of the court of first instance has the part in favor of the defendant, so the purport of appeal

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

▣ 제1심 판결문 2쪽 밑에서 4째 줄부터 마지막 줄까지를 임대보증금 2억 5,000만 원이 입금된 망인 명의의 우리은행 통장에서 2004. 10. 29. 위 금원이 모두 인출되어 같은 날 개설된 원고들 및 민CC 명의의 각 제일상호저축은행 통장에 4,000만 원씩, 같은 날 개설된 원고 김AA 명의의 우리은행 통장에 1억 원, 이미 개설되어 있던 민 CC 명의의 우리은행 통장에 3,000만 원이 각 입금된 사실이 밝혀졌다 로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 3쪽 9째줄 2005. 5. 30.자 앞에 상속세 및 증여세법 제47조 제2항에 의하여 를 추가한다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 5쪽 2째줄 입금되었다 를 이체되었다 로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 5쪽 8째줄 제일상호저축은행 통장 을 제일상호저축은행 통장 및 우리은행 통장 으로 고친다.

▣ 제1심 판결문 6쪽 밑에서 7째줄 다음에 아래 부분을 추가한다.

Defendant is presumed to have been donated to the Plaintiffs each deposit of KRW 40 million deposited in the passbook in the Jeju Mutual Savings Bank in the name of the Plaintiffs, and KRW 100 million deposited in the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff KimA. In addition, each of the above deposits is presumed to have been owned by the Plaintiffs, barring special circumstances, under the Act on Real Name Financial Transactions and Confidentiality, barring any special circumstance. Defendant asserted that the imposition of gift tax in this case is lawful, since it did not prove that the amount deposited in each of the above deposits in the name of the Plaintiffs was made for other purpose than donation.

In a lawsuit seeking revocation of disposition imposing gift tax, as long as the deposit in the name of a person recognized as a donor by the tax authority is revealed to have been withdrawn and deposited as a deposit account in the name of a taxpayer, such deposit shall be presumed to have been donated to the taxpayer. Thus, barring special circumstances, such as withdrawal of such deposit and deposit in the name of a taxpayer, etc. for the purpose other than donation, the need for proof is the taxpayer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Du4082, Nov. 13, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, the above amount is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiffs, since the health team and the deceased KimD withdrawn the deposit deposit amount of KRW 250 million in the gas station in this case and deposited KRW 180 million in each deposit account in the name of the plaintiffs. However, the above amount is presumed to have been donated to the plaintiffs, i.e., the above circumstances recognized, that is, the amount of KRW 180 million deposited in the passbook in the name of the plaintiffs, i.e., the amount of KRW 180 million and KRW 40 million deposited in the passbook in the name of the plaintiffs, i.e., the amount of KRW 50 million deposited in the passbook in the name of the plaintiffs and KRW 200 million from February 2, 2005 to May 2005, it is deemed that the above amount was deposited in the passbook in the name of the plaintiffs and KRW 180 million in each of the above deposits in the deceased's name and KRW 200 million were not deemed to have been actually used or controlled by the plaintiffs.

In addition, the defendant asserts that each of the deposits of this case was deposited in the name of the plaintiffs and the civilCC, and was integrated into the civilCC account through the deposit and withdrawal transaction. It is difficult to distinguish the holders of each of the deposits of this case from the plaintiffs because some of the above process is mixed with funds used for the purpose of paying the gift tax of the plaintiffs, living expenses of the plaintiffs, repayment of loans, etc.

However, as seen earlier, the entire amount of KRW 180 million deposited into a passbook in the name of the plaintiffs was deposited again in the passbook in the name of the civilCC from February 2, 2005 to May 2005, and during that period, the plaintiffs did not use it, and there is no evidence to recognize that the plaintiffs were used for the plaintiffs or that the plaintiffs were actually used as a passbook in the name of the civilCC, as alleged by the defendant, the above assertion by the defendant on a different premise is without merit, unless it is further examined.

▣ 제1심 판결문 말미에 별지 관계법령을 추가한다.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claim for revocation of the gift tax imposition of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as all of the grounds for appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition.