2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 90% is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder 10% is assessed against the Defendant.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 2-2:

A. Under the premise that the Plaintiff received delivery of 2,771 Chapter 2,771 (hereinafter “instant bonds”) of national housing bonds of an amount equivalent to KRW 11,979,642,50 (the face value of KRW 16,705,00) at the end of December 200, the Defendant deemed that 1,013 (hereinafter “one bond”) was donated to ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant bonds”) having been issued with respect to the amount of KRW 6,537,294,50 (the face value of KRW 7,35,00,00) at the market value of KRW 5,42,348,00 (the face value of KRW 16,50,00) at the time of the investigation of the source of the purchase fund, the amount of such disposal was included in the amount of KRW 1,500 (the gift tax was reverted to KRW 40,500,200).

B. On January 25, 2005, the Plaintiff, who was dissatisfied with the instant disposition, filed an appeal with the National Tax Tribunal on January 25, 2005, but received a decision of June 28, 2006.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although it was true that the Plaintiff received the instant claim from ○○ around the end of December 2000, the Plaintiff was not donated from ○○○○○○. However, on January 15, 198, 198, she requested the 2 billion won management of the Plaintiff’s marriage congratulatory money owned by the Plaintiff to the ○○○○○○ Division. The 13 years thereafter, the 200 portion of the 13 years thereafter was managed and increased, and returned to the Plaintiff in the form of the instant claim. In particular, according to Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do702 Decided December 22, 2006 and 2007No000 Decided June 15, 2007, which were the appellate court reversed and remanded, the Plaintiff was deemed to have received a donation from ○○○○○. However, the Plaintiff did not have any other grounds for the imposition of the instant gift tax since the 2000 won was not found to have been found to have been unlawful as the Plaintiff’s gift or gift gift.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Fact of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of each statement in Gap 6,11, 12, and Eul 4:

(1) After investigating the facts that the Plaintiff, a son of ○○○, received the instant claim from ○○○○ or her father, and evaded gift tax thereon, the Prosecutor prosecuted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (tax) by the Central District Court 2004Rahap195 (the above public prosecution was instituted selectively on the facts charged of tax evasion under the premise that the Plaintiff received the donation from ○○○○○○ and the facts charged of tax evasion under the premise that the Plaintiff received the donation from ○○○○○○○). On July 30, 2004, the ○○ Central District Court rendered a judgment of conviction of the Plaintiff on the charge of tax evasion on the premise that the source of purchase fund was confirmed to ○○○○○○○○○, and on the charge of tax evasion on the instant claim identified to ○○○○○○○○○, the Prosecutor did not have any other evidence supporting that the Plaintiff was found not guilty on the grounds that the Plaintiff was not guilty on the grounds that the part of this case’s tax evasion relation.

(2) On the judgment of the first instance court, both the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing with the ○○ High Court 2004No2153. On October 19, 2004, the ○○ High Court rejected all of the Plaintiff’s assertion of mistake of facts and accepted part of the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, and on the ground that there is sufficient evidence to support the fact of tax evasion concerning the two claims of this case among the charges of tax evasion under the premise that the Plaintiff received a donation from ○○○○, the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years

(3) As to the above appellate judgment, the Plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court Decision 2004Do702. On December 22, 2006, the Supreme Court reversed the above appellate judgment and rendered a judgment remanded to the appellate court, on the ground that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that the two claims of this case were donated from ○○○, among the charges of tax evasion under the premise that the Plaintiff received a donation from ○○○, and thereby

(4) On June 15, 2007, the ○○ High Court (2007Noc. 2007Noc. 2000) reversed the above first instance judgment ex officio on the grounds that there was an error in calculating the amount of gift tax by dismissing all the allegations of mistake by the Plaintiff and the prosecutor on June 15, 2007. On the facts charged of tax evasion, the Plaintiff, among the facts charged of tax evasion under the premise that the Plaintiff received a donation from the former ○○○○○○○, sentenced the Plaintiff to a judgment of conviction of 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment, and 2.8 billion won of fine, and at the same time, sentenced the Plaintiff to a judgment of conviction for 2 years of suspended execution, among the facts charged of tax evasion under the premise that the Plaintiff received a donation from the former ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and thus, it cannot be concluded that the Plaintiff received a donation from the former ○○○ on the grounds that the relevant evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone alone was insufficient to acknowledge.

(5) The source of funds used to purchase the instant one claim as a result of the prosecutor’s account tracking by the prosecutor was revealed to be a non-financial expense created and managed by the former ○○○○ prior to the Plaintiff’s marriage, but the source of funds used to purchase the instant two claims was not revealed to be impossible to track due to money laundering, etc.

(6) The former “○” participated in various interests, etc. while in office and raised a considerable amount of funds.

(7) Meanwhile, while studying the United States, the Plaintiff returned to Korea on December 1987 and left Korea to continue his studies. From around 1991 to around 194, the Plaintiff returned to ○○ Company and worked in 1994, and returned to her country on 1999.

D. Determination

(1) In order to maintain the legality of the instant disposition 2, the Defendant changed the grounds for disposition to the effect that the Plaintiff received the gift of the instant claim 2 from the Jeon○○○○. First, we examine whether the aforementioned grounds for disposition are allowed to change.

Even if there were errors or errors in part of the facts acknowledged at the time of the initial disposition by the tax authority, if the facts found thereafter are not different from the original facts that were identical to the original facts of taxation, the identity of the disposition is maintained. Even if the person recognized as the donor was merely the financial manager of the donor, the identity of the disposition is maintained and the initial disposition of gift tax is lawful (Supreme Court Decision 96Nu272 delivered on February 11, 1997). In this case, even in this case, the purport of this changed disposition is that the ○○○○○, which was recognized as the original donor, is the financial manager of the former ○○○○○○○, and the actual donor’s actual donor was the ○○○○○○○○○, and thus, the changed taxation requirements and the changed taxation requirements are deemed to be within the same facts

However, the Defendant added the grounds for disposition to the effect that the instant two disposition is lawful as the disposition pursuant to the presumption of gift under Article 45 of the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act. However, the first taxation requirement is the object of the gift act of the instant two claims itself, contrary to the fact that the original taxation requirement is the object of the gift act of the instant two claims, the additional taxation requirement is ① the acquisition of the instant two claims and ② the object is short of the acquisition value of the donee’s income, etc., and it is difficult to view that the basic fact is identical.

(2) Meanwhile, in a criminal trial, the burden of proof on the facts charged in the criminal trial is imposed on the prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined in the interests of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do3081, Mar. 8, 1996). However, in a tax lawsuit, in reality, the deliberation of tax avoidance is limited between the people in relation to the payment of taxes, and it is extremely difficult for the taxation data supporting the facts of taxation to require the tax authority to prove the degree required in the criminal procedure even in a tax lawsuit under the circumstances where it is extremely difficult for all the taxation data to support the facts of taxation to find the taxation data without the taxpayer’s cooperation, this would result in the tax authority’s request for proof that is virtually impossible, and thus, it would lead to an unreasonable and unreasonable conclusion that disregards the special nature of tax relations.

Therefore, in a lawsuit seeking the revocation of a tax imposition disposition, the burden of proving the facts of taxation requirements must be borne by the defendant who is the taxation authority. However, if it is revealed that the facts of taxation requirements are presumed in light of the empirical rule in the specific litigation process, it cannot be readily concluded that the other party is an illegal disposition that fails to meet the taxation requirements, unless the other party proves that the facts at issue cannot be subject to empirical application (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du6392, Nov. 13, 2002).

(3) In light of the following circumstances revealed in the above facts, i.e., (i) although the financing source of the instant claim 2 was not revealed, it appears that the financing source of the instant claim 2 was ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, upon the request of the former ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s transfer of the instant claim 1 to the Plaintiff. (ii) Although the purchase source of the instant claim 2 was not revealed, it was merely the fact that the former ○○○○○○○○○○○’s transfer of the instant claim 2 was concealed through a kind of laundry, but it was highly probable that the source of the instant claim 2 was also a non-financial source of the instant claim 5, as the instant one claim 1, and (iii) the Plaintiff did not have the possibility of acquiring the instant claim 3rd○○○○○’s transfer of the instant claim 2, which was merely an objective evidence that the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim 2, despite its acquisition of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant claim.

(4) As to this, the Plaintiff’s purchase fund of the instant claim is transferred to the Plaintiff.

It is not a donation from ○○, etc., but argued to the effect that the management of the amount of KRW 2 billion by requesting the foreign aid division to return the funds raised in the form of the claim. However, in light of the fact that there is no objective evidence on the creation, developments leading up to propagation, and details of marriage congratulatory, and that it is difficult to understand that the funds of KRW 2 billion were increased at KRW 20 billion in 13 years and 13 years and 20 billion when based on the general transaction concept, etc., the testimony of 32, 34-1, 4-2, and witness Lee ○○, 2, and △△△△△△△, each testimony of △△△△△△△ was not trusted, and it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

(5) However, when the Plaintiff calculated the amount of lawful gift tax on the premise that all of the instant claims were donated from ○○○○○, as indicated in the separate calculation, the amount of tax is KRW 7,720,748,750, as indicated in the separate calculation (i.e., KRW 8,023,020,646,440 + KRW 4,102,934,290 + KRW 302,830,980 (=8,023,580, 720,749,750; KRW 7,720,749,750; and (ii) the amount of tax is less than KRW 8,020,646,440; and (iii) the amount of tax is more than KRW 308,390,90; and (iv) the amount of tax is more than KRW 309,300; and (iv) the amount of tax is more than KRW 30139,30139,2000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Details of calculation

Classification

Original

Main Case (B)

Difference (B-1)

○○ Donation

○○ Donations

Total (1)

Value of donation

6,537,294,500

5,442,348,000

11,979,642,500

11,979,642,500

0

The estimated amount of re-donations;

0

0

0

Family Mutual Aid Association

16,371,009

13,628,991

30,000,000

30,000,000

0

Tax Base

6,520,923,491

5,428,719,009

11,949,642,500

11,949,642,500

0

Tax Rate

0.5

0.5

0.5

calculated tax amount

2,800,461,745

2,254,359,504

5,054,821,249

5,514,821,250

460,000,001

Amount omitted from a household;

676,307,851

676,307,851

(676,307,851)

Amount of final tax

2,800,461,745

2,930,667,355

5,731,129,100

5,514,821,250

(216,307,850)

Additional Tax on negligent tax returns

560,092,349

586,133,471

1,146,225,820

1,102,964,250

(43,26,570)

Additional Dues

560,092,349

586,133,471

1,146,225,820

1,102,964,250

(43,26,570)

Total determined tax amount

3,920,646,443

4,102,934,297

8,023,580,740

7,720,749,750

(302,830,990)

Notice Tax Amount

3,920,646,440

4,102,934,290

8,023,580,730

7,720,749,750

(302,830,980)

Calculated tax amount: 10,400,000 + (11,949,642,500- 3,000,000,000)*5 = 5,514,821,250

Additional tax on negligent tax returns: 5,514,821,250 *0.2 = 1,102,964,250

Additional dues: 5,514,821,250 *0.2 = 1,102,964,250

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

Article 2 Gift Tax Taxables

(1) Where any donated property falls under any of the following as of the date of donation due to a donation by a third party (excluding donation becoming effective due to the death of a donor; hereinafter the same shall apply), gift tax shall be levied on such donated property, as prescribed by this Act:

1. Where a person to whom property has been donated (hereinafter referred to as " donee") is a resident (including a non-profit corporation, the head office or main office of which is located in Korea; hereafter the same shall apply in this paragraph and Articles 54 and 59), all of the donated property, as a donation, by the

(3) The term "donation" used in this Act means a gratuitous transfer (including transfer at a remarkably low price) of any tangible or intangible property, the economic value of which can be calculated, directly or indirectly, to another person or an increase in the property value of another person by donation, notwithstanding the name, form, purpose, etc. of the relevant act or transaction.

Article 4 (Gift Tax Liability)

(1) A donee shall be liable to pay gift tax pursuant to this Act: Provided, That where the donee is a profit-making corporation, the gift tax payable by such profit-making corporation shall be exempted, but where the profit-making corporation, the title holder of the gift tax under Article 45-2, is exempted from paying the gift tax, the actual owner (

Article 31 Scope of Gifted Property

(1) Gift property under Article 2 shall include property belonging to the donee, all articles having economic value capable of realizing in money and all de facto or de facto rights having property value.

Article 57 (Premium Taxation of Donation to Lineal descendants)

Where a donee is a lineal descendant who is not a donor's child, an amount equivalent to 30/100 of the gift tax amount calculated shall be added to the amount calculated: Provided, That this shall not apply to cases where a lineal descendant of the donor who is a recent lineal descendant of the donor dies and is donated to