Article 34 of the Enforcement Decree of the former Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act

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

A. A. Around September 2004, the Defendant conducted an investigation into the real estate acquired by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife ○○, as indicated below, and the source of funds out of the shares.

Owners

Date of acquisition

Property acquired;

Acquisition value (unit of cost):

Insufficient sources (units): Won

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

142,000,000

(2) December 16, 1998

(w)○○ Shares 32,453 Shares

324,530,000

(3) 201.4. 24

(1) Micker disregarding

○ ○○ ○○ ○○

○○-○ and one parcel outside of ○

Factory site: 652.43 square meters

263,000,000

113,000,000

(4) November 6, 2001

(1)○ shares 79,538 shares

795,380,000

258,000,000

(5) November 15, 2001

(m)the shares of ○ Bank;

65,000 Shares

198,000,000

198,000,000

Total (1)

.

.

1,722,910,000

569,000,000

○ ○

(6) December 16, 1998>

(m)○ shares 8,11 shares;

81,110,000

(7) November 6, 2001

(m)○ shares 19,881 shares;

198,810,000

153,000,000

(8) The Jun. 20, 2001

(m)the shares of ○ Bank;

30,000 Shares

52,000,000

52,000,000

(9) 9.17

(u)shares 76,000 shares of ○ Bank;

140,000,000

140,000,000

(10) Does 202.11

(1)20,000 shares of ○ Bank

97,000,000

97,000,000

(11) The case shall be on January 14, 200

(1)20,000 shares of ○ Bank

98,000,000

98,000,000

(12) January 28, 2002

(1)23,00 shares of ○ Bank

102,000,000

102,000,000

Total (2)

.

.

768,920,00

642,000,000

Total sum (1) + (2)

2,491,830,000

1,211,00,000

B. On January 3, 2005, the Defendant: (a) presumed that the Plaintiff and ○○○○ did not disclose the source of the pertinent real estate and shares acquisition fund, and KRW 569,00,000, and KRW 642,00,000, respectively, were donated respectively to others; and (b) imposed and collected gift tax amounting to KRW 154,980,000 on the Plaintiff on January 3, 2005, and KRW 185,640,000 on the Plaintiff (i.e., imposition of gift tax on the Plaintiff).

(In fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

The defendant asserts that the disposition of this case is lawful on the grounds of the relevant laws and regulations and the above disposition. The plaintiff was legitimate since 1969 to 1993 on the ground that the plaintiff had sufficient financial capability to acquire the real estate and stocks of this case since the date of acquisition of the real estate and stocks of this case, such as the plaintiff's work experience, income, property status, etc. for the company from 1969 to 1993, 100, 1994, 200 to 200, 79, 39, 39, 2000, 200, 200, 175,758,000, and 200,000 won as wage and salary income, etc. (the defendant failed to vindicate the source of acquisition fund, and therefore 569,000,000,000 won was sufficiently explained).

(b) Related statutes;

The previous Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act (amended by Act No. 7010, Dec. 30, 2003)

Article 45 (Presumption of Donation of Funds, etc. for Acquisition of Property) (1) Where it is difficult to recognize that a person acquired the property by his/her own means in view of his/her occupation, age, income, property status, etc. and prescribed by Presidential Decree, the person who acquired the property shall be presumed

The Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act Enforcement Decree

(1) The term “cases as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 45 (1) and (2) of the Act means the cases where the sum of the amounts verified by the following provisions falls short of the value of the acquired property or the amount of repayment of debts: Provided, That this shall not include the cases where the amount not attested falls short of the smaller of the amount equivalent to 20/100 of the value of the acquired property or the amount of repayment of debts, or two hundred million won:

1. The amount of income which has been reported or received the taxation (including the cases of non-taxation or reduction or exemption; hereafter the same shall apply in this Article);

2. The value of inherited or donated property which has been reported or received a taxation;

3. The amount of money received for the disposal of properties or the amount of money used directly for the acquisition of properties or the redemption of liabilities received;

(2) The term “amount prescribed by the Presidential Decree” in Article 45 (3) of the Act means the amount determined by the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in consideration of the age, householder, occupation, property status, social and economic status, etc. of the relevant property or the repayment of debts not less than 30 million won in total within ten years before or before the date of property acquisition

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) From 1963 to 1993, the Plaintiff was working on (main) ○○ Automobile, etc. from 1963 to 1993, and (main) ○○○○ was working on the business type of automobile parts manufacturing, etc. from 1994 to 1994, and was employed as a representative director from 1999 to 200 won in total as earned income from ○○ from 1999 to 2001. This ○○ had no special occupation as a home owner, and the amount of income reported from 1997 to 2001 is interest, dividend, 45,000,000 won.

(2) The defendant recognized the source of acquisition of 1,200,000 won (3) 263,000,000 won from ○○○○ Bank’s account as of April 24, 2001 and deposited 1,50,000 won in ○○ Bank’s account (0-00-000) under the name of ○○ Bank’s account as of April 20, 200, 2000 won as of 10,000 won (the remaining 113,000-00-000 won), 3,000 won from ○ Bank’s account (the 200-00-0000 won) as of 0.10 won from ○○ Bank’s account as of 00,000 won, 3,000 won as of 200 won from 00,000 won and 3,000 won from 201.3

(3) Meanwhile, the Defendant recognized the source of the acquisition fund as to the acquisition fund, and recognized the acquisition fund of KRW 45,00,000 as the acquisition fund of KRW 198,810,000 among the acquisition fund of KRW 198,810,000, the remainder of KRW 153,000,000, which was paid as interest and dividend income, was considered to be an unidentified amount, and the remainder of KRW 8,99,000 as to the total amount of the stock acquisition fund of KRW 489,00,000 was not known. (In this regard, ○○ was a donation made by the Plaintiff, and even if this is the taxable value of the gift tax, the Defendant brought a lawsuit seeking revocation of the gift tax of KRW 50,00,000,000 as the court’s imposition disposition of KRW 142,00,000,000 for the spouse deduction under the Inheritance Tax and Gift Tax Act.)

(Evidence) Evidence Nos. 2-1 through 6, Evidence Nos. 3, Evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 4-1 through 6 of Evidence Nos. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

D. Determination

(1) If the Plaintiff does not prove any of the above facts and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the amount of KRW 569,00 out of the acquisition fund shall be presumed to have been donated to another person, unless the Plaintiff proves any of the financial sources of KRW 1,722,910,00 ( KRW 1,722,910,000- KRW 569,000) to not more than 1,378,328,000 ( KRW 1,722,910,000).

(2) Of the Plaintiff’s acquisition funds of this case, it is argued that the Plaintiff received 642,00,000 won, which was recognized as an unknown amount from the Defendant, from the Plaintiff, to the extent that it was proved that the Plaintiff borrowed from a financial institution or remains in the Plaintiff’s bank account, and whether the Plaintiff’s occupation, career, and income, etc. were proved as an acquisition fund of the real estate and stocks in excess of the part recognized as an acquisition fund of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff and ○○○○’s assertion that the Plaintiff received 642,00,000 won, which was recognized as an unknown amount from the Defendant, was further formed with the Plaintiff’s property of KRW 1,211,00,000,000 in addition to the part recognized as the acquisition fund of the Plaintiff’s property, which is difficult to form under social norms in light of the Plaintiff’s occupation, work experience, and property formation. Thus, there is no evidence to view that the Plaintiff already withdrawn from the Plaintiff’s financial account (the Plaintiff’s 13000,000,00,000.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed for lack of reason.